ROBERT WELLS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal denies the State's motion to transfer a contempt appeal to circuit court, holding that the circuit court properly exercised jurisdiction over indirect criminal contempt proceedings for violations of domestic violence injunctions under section 741.30(9)(a), and that an administrative order cannot divest the circuit court of this statutory jurisdiction.
The court held that Administrative Order 92-48 cannot alter the circuit court's jurisdiction because an administrative order cannot be inconsistent with the Constitution or contravene the jurisdictional authority of courts. Section 741.30(9)(a) grants the circuit court jurisdiction to enforce domestic violence injunctions through indirect criminal contempt, and each court has the inherent and statutory power to punish contempts against its own orders. Therefore, the circuit court properly heard the contempt proceedings.
[1] An administrative order cannot alter the jurisdiction of a circuit court.
[2] A court has inherent and statutory power to punish for violation of its own valid orders.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An administrative order cannot alter the jurisdiction of the circuit court.”
Establishes the foundational principle that administrative orders cannot override statutory jurisdictional grants
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Wells was found in indirect criminal contempt of court by the circuit court in 1993 for violating an injunction for protection against domestic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inherent Contempt Power cases and more on FLexlaw
ON APPELLEE’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
PER CURIAM.
Appellee, the State of Florida, moves this court to transfer this appeal to the circuit court. We deny the motion.
This is an appeal of a 1993 circuit court order finding appellant, Robert Wells, in indirect criminal contempt of court for violating an injunction for protection against domestic violence.1
The state contends that the circuit court erroneously heard the contempt proceedings because only the county court may hear contempt proceedings pursuant to Administrative Order 92-48. Administrative Order 92-48, since superceded by local rule, provides that the circuit court will hear:
[a]ll charges of criminal contempt of injunctions for protection.
The Order also states that the county court shall hear:
Lajll misdemeanor charges, including criminal contempt, arising from the violation of [a domestic violence] injunction.
An administrative order cannot alter the jurisdiction of the circuit court. First, Florida’s constitution authorizes the legislature to prescribe the jurisdiction of the circuit and county courts. Art. V, §§ 5(b), 6(b), Fla. Const. Second, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.020(c) provides that an administrative order may not be inconsistent with the Constitution. An administrative order also may not contravene the jurisdictional authority of the courts. Martinez v. Demers, 412 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Third, section 741.30(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), grants the circuit court jurisdiction to enforce compliance with an injunction against domestic violence through civil or indirect criminal contempt proceedings. Administrative Order 92-48 may not alter the jurisdiction of the circuit court on section 741.30(9)(a) contempt proceedings.
Additionally, courts have inherent and statutory contempt power to punish for violation of a valid court order. § 38.22, Fla.Stat. (1993); R.M.P. v. Jones, 419 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1982), overruled on other grounds, A.A. v. Rolle, 604 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1992). The authority to punish for contempt lies with the court contemned. Graham v. State ex rel. McMurrough, 144 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Here, the circuit court has jurisdiction to hear’ petitions for injunctions for protection against domestic violence. § 741.30(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). Therefore, the circuit court is authorized to punish violations of its injunctions.
Because an administrative order may not deprive the circuit court of its jurisdiction to hear indirect criminal contempt charges pursuant to section 741.30(9)(a), and because each court has the power to punish con-tempts against it, we void the portion of Administrative Order 92-48 authorizing the county court to hear criminal contempt charges arising from an injunction violation.
We therefore hold that the circuit court properly exercised its jurisdiction to hear the contempt proceedings below and that appellate jurisdiction lies with this court. Accordingly, we deny appellee’s motion to transfer. Motion to transfer denied.
. In 1994, the legislature eliminated indirect criminal contempt as a measure to enforce compliance with injunctions for protection against domestic violence, because "[i]t is the intent of the Legislature that domestic violence be treated as an illegal act rather than a private matter.” § 741.2901(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tobkin v. State, 777 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…sdiction to conclude ancillary matters involved in the case such as outstanding and unresolved motions for attorney’s fees and costs, and similar issues. These ancillary matters would include unresolved contempt of court matters. See Wells v. State, 654 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The jurisdictional issue here is not one of subject matter jurisdiction, which the court clearly has.2 Rather, the issue is whether the trial judge, after the voluntary dismissal in this case, still has the power to preside over…
-
Simpson v. Young, 884 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…of several issues, such as an action for divorce or separation, and includes child neglect and dependency proceedings.”). A circuit court has jurisdiction to enforce its own judgments by contempt. See § 38.22, Fla. Stat. (2003); cf. Wells v. State, 654 So. 2d 145, 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (stating that courts have the inherent contempt power to punish the violation of a valid court order).1 But that does not end our inquiry. The order that granted custody to the Simpsons did not prohibit them from relocating w…
Authorities Cited
- A.A. v. Cornell Rolle, 604 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1992)
- R. M. P. v. Carlton Jones, 419 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1982)
- Graham v. State, 144 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Martinez v. Demers, 412 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)