ANTHONY MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Anthony Martin was found in direct criminal contempt of court and sentenced to 30 days in jail for accusing the trial judge of corruption during a hearing. The appellate court reversed because the trial judge failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 by not giving Martin an opportunity to explain his conduct or present mitigating circumstances before imposing punishment, despite acknowledging the contemptuous nature of the remarks.
Although the contemptuous nature of Martin's remarks was apparent on their face and required no explanation from the judge to establish the contempt, the trial judge's failure to comply with Rule 3.830 by affording Martin an opportunity to explain his conduct and argue for mitigation before sentencing constitutes reversible error. The case must be remanded for the trial judge to provide this procedural opportunity, though the judge may impose the same sentence after doing so.
[1] A judge may summarily punish a person for direct criminal contempt committed in the judge's presence, without further proof or explanation from the offender.
[2] A judge must inform a defendant of the accusation of contempt and the facts supporting it before adjudication of guilt.
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“Prior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against the defendant and inquire as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the Court and sentenced therefor.”
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 establishing the procedural requirement the trial judge violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin arrived late to a hearing on a motion for a restraining order and loudly criticized the judge's conduct, calling the proceeding a "kangaroo cou…
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 Due Process In Contempt Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
As Anthony Martin breezed tardily into a hearing on a motion for a restraining order, which had already been in progress for some time, he began to rail against the commencement of the hearing in his absence, referring to the proceedings as a “kangaroo court.” Not being content with that he also attacked the impartiality of the judge. Turning his back on the trial judge, he addressed the media cameras thus:
“I feel very uncomfortable being with a judge who — in 28 years in court I have never in my life seen a judge who would conduct an ex parte hearing when there was no necessity to do so. I feel it’s scandalous. With the court’s permission, I’m going to go to the Fourth District Court of Appeals [sic] and move to quash the proceeding instanter and also to quash any action you might take. We certainly feel these litigants, if they wish to proceed, have a right to do so. There is a camera here. This is a circus proceeding. You are conducting a judicial circus for the law firm of Steel, Hector and Davis and Tom Barkdull, and we’re going to the District Court of Appeals [sic]. We intend justice be done by a judge who’s not bought lock, stock and barrel by Scripps Howard Broadcasting and the law firm of Steel, Hector and Davis. Your honor, I do not wish to be a party to — ”
At that point, the trial judge interrupted the tirade and said:
“Let me stop you right now.... That last remark about ‘bought’ is contemptuous. You are in direct criminal contempt. You’re sentenced to 30 days. Take him away. I’ll grant your motion.”
The court then also refused a stay of the sentence for contempt while Martin brought an appeal.1
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 provides as follows:
“Prior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against the defendant and inquire as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the Court and sentenced therefor. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.” [emphasis supplied]
As we explained in Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993),
“This rule requires that the defendant be first given notice of the charge of contempt of court and the facts on which the charge is based. Then he must be given an opportunity to explain why he should not be adjudicated guilty of contempt before punishment is imposed.”
626 So. 2d at 1050. See also Walker v. State, 559 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We have pointed out that “[sjcrupulous compliance with rule 3.830 is required because its provisions constitute the essence of due process.” Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); and Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Plainly Martin’s comments are criminally contemptuous on their face and require no explanation by the judge as to why they are deemed contemptuous. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948); and Ex Parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 9 S.Ct. 77, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888) (where a contemptuous act is committed in open court in the presence of the judge, the trial judge may proceed upon its own knowledge of the facts, without further proof, without issue or trial, and without hearing or explanation of the motives of the offender, immediately to determine whether the facts justified punishment and to inflict such punishment as was fitting under the law).
On the other hand, it is equally clear that the trial judge failed to comply with the portion of rule 3.830 quoted above and give Martin a chance to show why he should not be found in contempt and to argue for a different sentence. Consequently we have no choice but to reverse for compliance with the rule.
On remand the trial judge shall afford the contemnor an opportunity to explain why he should not be adjudicated guilty of contempt before punishment is imposed; but he shall be free to impose the same sentence as before.
REVERSED.
POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . We granted Martin’s motion for a stay pending review. On our own motion, we have designated the State of Florida as the appellee in place of the trial judge and the Sheriff of Palm Beach County.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carnival Corp. v. Beverly, 744 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ty can make oneself a judge of the validity of orders issued by trial courts, and by one’s own disobedience set them aside, then our court’s are devoid of power, and the judicial power, both federal and state, would be a mockery.”); Martin v. State, 711 So. 2d 1173, 1174-75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So. 2d 279, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). “Counsel’s perception of the correctness of the trial court’s ruling is no excuse for engaging in contemptuous behavior and disregarding the court’s order.”…
-
Berman v. State of Fla. & Chris Jones, 751 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ssary to safeguard procedural due process. See Schenck v. State, 645 So. 2d 71, 72 (Fla.4th DCA 1994); Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). More recently, in Martin v. State, 711 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we reversed a direct criminal contempt conviction because the trial court failed to give the defendant an opportunity to explain why he should not be held in contempt, even though we agreed that the defendant’s remarks were pate…
-
Young v. Wood-Cohan, 727 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…urt order. Despite the fact that appellant’s conduct may have properly been characterized as criminal contempt, the trial court’s failure to provide notice to the appellant that he was facing criminal contempt requires reversal. See Martin v. State, 711 So. 2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We therefore reverse the finding of criminal contempt and sentence. We do so with leave for the court to conduct further proceedings after giving the appellant notice of an intention to pursue a charge of criminal contempt…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948)
- Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1888)
- Colondro Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Walker v. State, 559 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)