RICHARD NEWTON HILL, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.840 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges orders which (1) found him guilty of indirect criminal contempt for violating an injunction for protection against domestic violence; and (2) found him guilty of violating probation previously imposed upon him by a prior adjudication of indirect criminal contempt for violating the same injunction. The appellant was placed on a new probation of six months for the violation of probation, to be followed consecutively by a probation term of one year on the new contempt-of-court charge. We reverse.
The order to show cause in this case contained the same defect which this court found reversible in Giles v. Renew, 639 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). As in Giles, the order to show cause in this case failed to set out any facts. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 requires the order to show cause to' state “the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charge.” As we pointed out in Giles, failure to comply with rule 3.840 constitutes fundamental error. DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sramek v. State, 946 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ow cause order. See Mix, 827 So. 2d at 399 (reversing an adjudication for indirect criminal contempt because the basis of the order to show cause was an unsworn motion); Proctor v. State, 764 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (same); Hill v. State, 643 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (finding fundamental error where the affidavit in support of the order to show cause failed to state facts supporting contempt); Giles v. Renew, 639 So. 2d 701, 702-03 (1994) (same); Hunt, 659 So. 2d at 364 (reversing order of ind…
-
Geary W. Senterfitt v. Oaks, 775 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…itt to appear before the court to show cause why he should not be held in indirect criminal contempt, which is also required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(a). See Judkins v. Ross, 658 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Hill v. State, 643 So. 2d 1178, 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Failure to comply with the procedural requirements of rule 3.840 precludes a finding of indirect criminal contempt. See Hunt, 659 So. 2d at 364 ("The state correctly concedes that the show cause order was defective, but ar…1 / 2
-
Alena M. Hunt v. State, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…error and was thus waived by appellant’s failure to make an objection. We reject this argument as it is contrary to unequivocal authority holding that noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 3.840 constitutes fundamental error. See Hill v. State, 643 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (show cause order failed to state essential facts); Giles v. Renew, 639 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (same); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (proceedings initiated on basis of unsworn motion); Paris, supra; St…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Giles v. Renew, 639 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)