ERIC NEILINGER, PETITIONER,
v.
KEN JENNE, SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY; AND FLORIDA STATE FIRE & SECURITY INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS
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 a criminal contempt conviction and incarceration order because the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, including failure to issue an order to show cause with essential facts, failure to arraign the defendant, and failure to include a recital of facts in the contempt order.
A trial court's indirect criminal contempt conviction and incarceration order must be reversed when the court fails to comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.
[1] A trial court's indirect criminal contempt conviction must be reversed when the court fails to issue an order to show cause stating essential facts, fails to arraign the…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Rule 3.840 defines the essence of due process in criminal contempt proceedings and must be scrupulously followed.”
Court explaining the mandatory nature of procedural compliance in indirect criminal contempt cases.
Petitioner Neilinger was found in indirect criminal contempt and ordered incarcerated for thirty days without stay or bond by the trial court.…
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
PER CURIAM.
We reverse an order of the circuit court finding petitioner in indirect criminal contempt and ordering him incarcerated for a period of thirty days without stay or bond. Having previously stayed the order below and ordered petitioner released from custody, we hereby state the basis for our decision. We conclude that the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 governing indirect contempt proceedings.
First, under rule 3.840(a), the court must “issue and sign an order directed to the defendant, stating the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and requiring the defendant to appear before the court to show cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt of court.” Here, the court failed to issue an order to show cause, stating the essential facts alleged to constitute indirect criminal contempt. Nor was petitioner arraigned pursuant to rule 3.840(d). Finally,' the court’s written order of contempt does not, as also required by rule 3.840(f), contain a recital of facts constituting the contempt for which petitioner was adjudicated guilty. See Bouie v. State, 784 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Woods v. State, 600 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Rule 3.840 defines the essence of due process in criminal contempt proceedings and must be scrupulously followed. Bouie, 784 So. 2d at 523.
Accordingly, we grant the petition without prejudice to proceed against petitioner in compliance with the requirements of rule 3.840.
STONE, FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VAN Hare v. VAN Hare, 870 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…mpulsory process for the attendance of witnesses, and to testify in his or her own defense. Failure to comply with the procedural requirements of this rule is reversible error. Willis v. State, 855 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Neilinger v. Jenne, 830 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Baker v. Green, 732 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). As to the civil contempt, the former husband is in arrears and does not dispute such. The order provides that unless paid, upon filing of an affidavit of non-compliance, the…
Authorities Cited
- Woods v. State, 600 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Bouie v. State, 784 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)