STANLEY WISNIEWSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
CHERYL WISNIEWSKI, 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 court held that an order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt was insufficient to meet due process requirements because it did not state the essential facts constituting the contempt.
[1] An order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt must state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged.
[2] An order for indirect criminal contempt is insufficient to meet due process requirements if it does not sufficiently inform the accused of the charges to allow a reasonab…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStanley Wisniewski was ordered to show cause why he was in contempt for violating a domestic violence injunction. The order referenced an attached aff…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.840 cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Chief Judge.
Stanley Wisniewski challenges an order holding him in indirect criminal contempt and sentencing him to pay a fine of $125 and serve 25 days of clerk supervised probation for violation of a domestic violence injunction. We reverse.
On July 21,1994, the court issued an order directing Wisniewski to show cause why he was not in contempt for failing to obey a domestic violence injunction previously issued and served on him. There is dispute over whether his wife’s affidavit/motion in support of the order was attached to the order. However, we find that the order, with or without her affidavii/motion attached, was insufficient to meet minimum due process requirements.
Greater procedural due process safeguards are accorded when proceedings are for indirect criminal contempt. This principle is recognized in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. The Rule requires that an order to show cause state “the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged....” Bray v. Rimes, 574 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), citing Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1977).
The order in this case stated, “YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to show cause ... why you STANLEY WISNIEWSKI, failed to obey the Court Order ... as indicated in the attached affidavit.” The affidavit alleged only that, “Over past 2 months he has violated the restraining order returning to & walking around property ... He has been seen parking on a neighbors driveway to do this....”
We conclude that neither the order nor the affidavit sufficiently informed Wisniewski of the charges against him so as to accord him reasonable opportunity to meet the charges by way of defense or explanation. See Grant v. State, 464 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We therefore reverse the order of contempt without prejudice to renew the proceedings with the appropriate notice as indicated in this opinion. In light of this opinion, we need not address the other issues raised on appeal.
Reversed.
PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MIX v. State, 827 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…at 154. Because the order to show cause did not adhere to the requirements of rule 3.840, we are compelled to reverse. Our reversal is without prejudice to new proceedings being initiated in conformity with rule 3.840. See Wisniewski v. Wisniewski, 657 So. 2d 944, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So. 2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In light of our reversal due to the insufficiency of the order to show cause, the other issues raised by Mix are moot. Reversed and remanded. PARKER and NORTHCUTT, J…
-
In re Guardianship OF: Ruth M. Meyer v. State, 672 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…at the contempt hearing after preparing the charging document. Even when the court initiates the contempt proceeding on its own motion, the order to show cause must state the essential facts constituting the contempt. See Wis-niewski v. Wisniewski, 657 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The amended order in this ease contains legal conclusions but no factual allegations. This problem is exacerbated by the order’s lack of a supporting affidavit or evidentiary basis. See Brown v. State, 595 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA…
-
Levine v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Rocco Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977)
- Bray v. Rimes, 574 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Grant v. State, 464 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)