G.C., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2005-05-18
No. 4D04-743
WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
901 So. 2d 1021 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

G.C. was held in contempt for failure to abide by a court order. We reverse because the court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150. The order to show cause did not state the facts constituting the contempt charge, nor did the court provide a reasonable time for preparation of a defense after it provided a statement of particulars of the acts constituting the contempt as required by rule 8.150(b)(1).

WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • K.M. v. State of Fla. & Daryl Wolfe, 962 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
    …ng, nor the rights afforded K.M. pursuant to section 985.037(b). The court failed to provide K.M. with the due process set forth by rule and statute and so he is entitled to habeas relief and the findings of contempt are reversed. See G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). SHAHOOD, C.J., GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
  • A.P. v. State, 215 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
    …“a prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure] rule 8.150 and section 985.037.” K.M. v. State, 962 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The trial court did not follow those procedures thereby resulting in a failure to provide Petitioner with due process. Accordingly, we determined and ordered that Petitioner was entitled to be immediately released from cus…
  • F.P. v. State, 216 So. 3d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
    …n. “[A] prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure] 8.150 and section 985.037.” KM. v. State, 962 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Here, the trial court did not follow these procedures, resulting in a failure to provide F.P. with due process. Accordingly, we determine that F.P. was entitled to immediate release from custody. The order of detention is…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw