XAVIER HAYES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Xavier Hayes was held in criminal contempt by the trial court in two separate orders. Although the trial court deviated from Rule 3.830's procedural requirements for direct criminal contempt proceedings, the appellate court affirmed because Hayes was ultimately afforded all substantive rights under the rule and the deviations were merely technical.
The trial court's orders holding Hayes in criminal contempt are affirmed. Although the trial court deviated from Rule 3.830's technical requirements, such deviation was harmless because Hayes was ultimately afforded all the rights incorporated in Rule 3.830, and the totality of the proceedings demonstrated fundamental fairness.
[1] A trial court's deviation from Rule 3.830, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, governing direct criminal contempt proceedings, may be permissible if the deviation is tec…
[2] The totality of a contempt proceeding, rather than a step-by-step recitation of each procedural rule provision, is the measure by which fundamental rights are weighed.
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 step-by-step recitation of each provision of the subject procedural rule is not requisite upon the trial judge. The record of the proceeding when taken in its totality is the scale upon which fundamental rights must be weighed.”
Establishes that strict procedural compliance is not required; the proper standard is whether fundamental rights were provided in the totality of the proceeding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceXavier Hayes engaged in conduct constituting direct criminal contempt in the actual presence of the court. The trial court issued two orders holding H…
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 Rule 3.830 cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s two orders holding Xavier Hayes in criminal contempt. We do so notwithstanding that the trial court deviated from Rule 3.830, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which rule governs direct criminal contempt proceedings and requires scrupulous compliance with its provisions.1 See Poitier v. Spears, 750 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The deviation, however, was technical and Hayes was ultimately afforded all the rights incorporated in Rule 3.830.2 As stated by the First District Court of Appeal in Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975): “A step-by-step recitation of each provision of the subject procedural rule is not requisite upon the trial judge. The record of the proceeding when taken in its totality is the scale upon which fundamental rights must be weighed.”3 Here, the totality scale was evenly balanced by the trial judge so as to provide Hayes with all his 3.830 rights and to assure that the business of the court could proceed notwithstanding Hayes’ disruptions.
Affirmed.
. Hayes does not contend that his actions were insufficient to justify his being held in direct criminal contempt. With good reason: our review of Hayes’ actions reveals them to be more than sufficient.
. Rule 3.830 reads:
"A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court. The judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital of those facts on which the adjudication of guilt is based. Prior to the adjudi cation 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. The judgment shall be signed by the judge and entered of record. Sentence shall be pronounced in open court."
. See also B.M. v. State, 523 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), citing and quoting Saunders.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Penson v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- B.M. v. State, 523 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Poitier v. Spears, 750 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Jenkins v. State, 750 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)