MICHAEL JUDKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
RANDY ROSS AND EMERALD COAST MOTORSPORTS, INC., APPELLEES
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.
Michael Judkins appeals an indirect criminal contempt order finding him guilty of violating an injunction by discharging firearms in the presence of Randy Ross. The Florida appellate court reversed because the contempt order failed to specify the facts constituting the violation and because the underlying motion was neither sworn nor supported by affidavit.
The appellate court held that reversal was required because the contempt order failed to specify the facts and circumstances of the alleged violation as required by Rule 3.840(f), and because the motion for an order to show cause was neither sworn to nor supported by an affidavit, which constitutes fundamental error.
[1] An order of indirect criminal contempt must specify the facts and circumstances constituting the contemptuous conduct.
[2] A petition or motion for an order to show cause in a criminal contempt proceeding must be sworn to or supported by an affidavit.
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“a recital of the facts constituting the contempt of which defendant has been found and adjudicated guilty”
Establishes the mandatory requirement of Rule 3.840(f) that contempt judgments must specify facts, not just conclusions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJudkins and Ross were neighbors; Ross owned Emerald Coast Motorsports, a race engine business. After a dispute involving threats allegedly made by Jud…
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 Indirect Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
VAN NORTWICK, Judge.
Michael Judkins seeks review of an order of indirect criminal contempt which was entered after the lower court found that Jud-kins had violated the terms of an injunction restraining Judkins and appellee, Randy Ross, from exhibiting or discharging firearms in each other’s presence. Because the order of indirect contempt fails to specify the facts and circumstances constituting Judkins’ contemptuous conduct, as required by Rule 3.840(f), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and because the petition on which the order is based was neither sworn to nor supported by an affidavit, we reverse.
Judkins and his family reside next to Emerald Coast Motorsports, Inc., a business which builds and repairs race car engines. Judkins and Ross, the owner of Emerald Coast, became embroiled in a controversy regarding the noise created by this business. Ross eventually petitioned for temporary and permanent injunctive relief because of threats allegedly made by Judkins against the business, its employees and customers. Judkins, appearing pro se, substantially denied the allegations made in the complaint for injunctive relief. Nevertheless, an injunction was eventually entered which, as later amended and modified, provided that Ross and Judkins were mutually restrained from going on to the property of the other at any time and from exhibiting or discharging firearms in each other’s presence.
Approximately six months after the amended/modified injunction issued, Ross filed a motion for an order to show cause claiming that Judkins had willfully discharged at least one firearm intermittently during the afternoon of June 2, 1994. Ross alleged that this conduct was in violation of the amended/modified injunction noted above. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order of indirect criminal contempt by which appellant was found guilty of indirect criminal contempt for the willful vio lation of the amended/modified temporary injunction prohibiting both Ross and Judkins from discharging firearms in each other’s presence. Judkins was sentenced to 30 days in county jail and was ordered to pay a $500 gne
On appeal, Judkins argues, among other issues, that the lower court failed to fully comply with Rule 3.840(f), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that a lower court shall include in a judgment for indirect criminal contempt, “a recital of the facts constituting the contempt of which defendant has been found and adjudicated guilty.” We must agree with the appellant. The order in the instant ease finds that:
[Judkins] is guilty of indirect criminal contempt for the willful violation of the amended/modified temporary injunction dated Jan. 6, 1994, prohibiting both plaintiff and defendant from discharging firearms in each other’s presence.
No further facts regarding the circumstances of this violation are set forth in the written order, nor are any such findings made in the record. We therefore find reversal is required. Fay v. State, 608 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Gidden v. State, 613 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1993).
Further, we find that reversal is required because Ross’s motion for an order to show cause was neither sworn to nor supported by an affidavit. Such an omission is fundamental error. Deter v. Deter, 353 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Fay v. State, supra; Reins v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
We do not reach the other arguments raised by appellant in this appeal. For the reasons expressed above, the order of indirect criminal contempt is REVERSED and the sentence is VACATED.
WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. Green, 732 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ilure to comply with the rule is fundamental error and a contempt order arising out of that proceeding may not stand. See Fay v. State, 608 So. 2d 589, 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Hunt v. State, 659 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Judkins v. Ross, 658 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 911, 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So. 2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). This was not a case where the contemnor “affirmatively represented to the trial court that she waiv…
-
Angelberto Decoro v. State, 771 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ilure to comply with the rule is fundamental error and a contempt order arising out of that proceeding may not stand. See Fay v. State, 608 So. 2d 589, 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Hunt v. State, 659 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Judkins v. Ross, 658 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 911, 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So. 2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). In the instant ease, there is only the caption verified on the pleadings, followed by an acknowled…
-
Geary W. Senterfitt v. Oaks, 775 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…the alleged criminal contempt and directing Mr. Senterfitt 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…
Authorities Cited
- Gidden v. State, 613 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1993)
- Deter v. Dinina D. Deter, 353 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Reins v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- LEE Cnty. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Cook, 604 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Glispy v. State, 608 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Donnie Gene Craig v. State, 608 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)