ANTHONY R. 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.
Martin appeals his second direct criminal contempt conviction. The trial court properly followed procedural rules by providing Martin an opportunity to explain his conduct before adjudication, and Martin's argument that the absence of a court reporter requires reversal is rejected because direct criminal contempt proceedings are treated differently from indirect contempt and the specific due process issues raised in the analogous Blalock case are not presented here.
The conviction is affirmed. The absence of a court reporter does not require reversal in this direct criminal contempt case, distinguishing it from Blalock, which involved indirect criminal contempt and specific due process issues that required a record.
[1] A trial court must provide an opportunity for a contemnor to explain why they should not be adjudicated guilty before imposing punishment for direct criminal contempt.
[2] The requirement for reporting criminal proceedings at public expense may be directory rather than mandatory in certain direct criminal contempt cases.
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“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, which requires that the court give the contemnor an opportunity to explain why he should not be adjudicated guilty before punishment is imposed”
Establishes the procedural requirement that was violated in the first proceeding and corrected on remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin was previously reversed on a direct criminal contempt charge because the trial court failed to follow Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 …
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 Summary Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In Martin v. State, 711 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) we reversed an order holding appellant in direct criminal contempt because the trial court had not followed Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, which requires that the court give the contemnor an opportunity to explain why he should not be adjudicated guilty before punishment is imposed. The facts comprising the contempt are set forth in that opinion. On remand, the court gave appellant the opportunity to explain and then imposed the same thirty day sentence. We find no error and affirm.
At the hearing pursuant to our remand of the prior appeal, appellant made additional contemptuous remarks impugning the integrity of the court, and the court, after giving appellant an opportunity to explain why he should not again be found guilty ,of direct criminal contempt, found him in direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to five months and twenty-nine days in the Palm Beach Detention Center. Appellant now appeals the second criminal contempt conviction, case number 98-2639, which we consolidated with case number 98-2637.
Appellant argues that this conviction should be reversed because there was no court reporter at the proceedings below, citing Blalock v. Rice, 707 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). In Blalock the second district held that Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.070(b), which requires all criminal proceedings to be reported at public expense, was mandatory in a case in which the contemnor was found to be in indirect criminal contempt in a domestic relations case. Blalock recognized that this court had held the language of rule 2.070(b) directory, rather than mandatory, in Rader v. State, 571 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
We need not decide whether this cotart should reconsider Rader in light of Blal-ock, because this case is distinguishable from Blalock. First, in Blalock the charges were for indirect criminal contempt, a proceeding in which the individual is protected by the full panoply of due process rights. Paletti v. State, 727 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In the present case the appellant was charged with direct criminal contempt which, under rule 3.830, may be punished summarily.
In addition, in Blalock, the defendant was arguing that in the absence of a transcript, there was nothing to show that she had willfully refused to pay, that she had properly waived counsel, or that her plea of guilty had been properly made, issues which could not have been resolved in that case without a record. None of those issues are raised in this case.
We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find them to be without merit. Affirmed.
KLEIN, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sandelier v. State, 238 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…ll consideration of the issue on appeal. Persoff v. Persoff, 589 So. 2d 1007, 1008-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Indirect criminal contempt is a proceeding in which the individual is protected by the full panoply of due process rights. Martin v. State, 743 So. 2d 591, 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). This court has reversed an indirect criminal contempt charge where the defendant was not provided formal written notice of the charge. Martinez v. State, 976 So. 2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Other districts have re…
-
Woodward v. State, 238 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…ranscript of the proceedings because the trial court failed to secure the presence of a court reporter. She argues for a rule of automatic reversal of a direct criminal contempt where there is no record of the proceedings. In Martin v. State, 743 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), we rejected the notion that a court reporter was required in a case involving direct criminal contempt. We noted that direct criminal contempt operates under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, which provides that such…
Authorities Cited
- Blalock v. Rice, 707 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Martin v. State, 711 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Johnie Lee Rader v. State, 571 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Paletti v. State, 727 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)