E.H., A CHILD, 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.
The court reversed an indirect criminal contempt order against a juvenile because the trial court failed to follow required procedural rules, including failure to issue an order to show cause, conducting the hearing in the juvenile's absence, and failing to recite the factual basis for contempt.
A trial court's order holding a juvenile in indirect criminal contempt must be reversed when the court fails to follow Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150(b), including failing to issue an order to show cause, conducting the hearing without the defendant present, and failing to recite the factual basis for contempt.
[1] A trial court must issue an order to show cause and serve it on the defendant to initiate indirect criminal contempt proceedings under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure…
[2] A defendant in indirect criminal contempt proceedings must be present to testify in his or her own defense and to present evidence of mitigating circumstances as required…
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 intelligenceE.H., a juvenile, was held in indirect criminal contempt of court by the trial court. The trial court did not follow the procedural requirements set f…
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
PATTERSON, Judge.
E.H. challenges an order holding him in indirect criminal contempt of court. We reverse the order because, as the State concedes, the trial court did not follow the procedures set forth in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150(b) to hold E.H. in indirect criminal contempt of court.
It appears from the record that the trial court never issued an order to show cause, which must be served on the defendant to initiate indirect criminal contempt proceedings. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(b)(1); see also Blalock v. Rice, 707 So. 2d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (discussing Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, the adult counterpart to rule 8.150). The trial court also erred by finding E.H. in contempt in the juvenile’s absence. By doing so, the trial court could not comply with the requirements that the defendant be allowed to “testify in his or her own defense” and that prior to the court’s pronouncement of sentence, the defendant be “afforded the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances.” Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(b)(4) and (7). We also note that the written order fails to recite the facts upon which the contempt is based. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(b)(6). Thus, we reverse the trial court’s order finding E.H. in indirect criminal contempt of court.
Reversed.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.W. v. Lofthiem, 855 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…trial court failed to follow any of the procedures required by rule 8.150(b), which governs indirect contempt. Thus, the trial court failed to afford the due process protections required in indirect criminal contempt proceedings. See E.H. v. State, 711 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); May v. State, 623 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). For the reasons explained in this opinion, we lift the temporary stay of the detention order, grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and direct that the order of detention…
Authorities Cited
- Blalock v. Rice, 707 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)