SANDY LEA SUTTON, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL KEITH AMERSON, 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 dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court's order did not constitute a final appealable order—it found a factual basis for contempt but withheld sanctions pending issuance of a show cause order, leaving the contempt motion pending rather than finally adjudicated.
An order that finds a factual basis for contempt but withholds sanctions pending issuance of a show cause order is not a final appealable order.
[1] An order finding a factual basis for indirect criminal contempt but withholding sanctions pending issuance of a show cause order is not a final appealable order under Flo…
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 intelligenceAppellant Sutton appealed an order from the lower tribunal regarding a motion for indirect criminal contempt for failure to comply with a court order.…
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
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of November 28, 2005, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not an appealable order. A final order holding a party in indirect criminal contempt for failure to comply with an order of the court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, is an appealable order. See Hunt v. State, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Baker v. Green, 732 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Here, however, the lower tribunal appears to have neither granted nor denied the motion. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the order on appeal does not hold the appellant in contempt. Although it determined that a factual basis for a finding of contempt exists, the lower tribunal concluded that a finding of contempt and the attendant sanction of incarceration are proper only after the issuance of an order to show cause. Because no such show cause order had issued, the court withheld the imposition of contempt sanctions. Thus, the motion for contempt appears to remain pending before the lower tribunal and the notice of appeal is consequently premature. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief, filed on January 9, 2006, and Amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief, filed on January 12, 2006, are denied as moot.
ERVIN, DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linn v. Basil D. Fossum, M.D., 946 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2006)…ross-examination, it is inappropriate to allow experts on direct examination to bolster their credibility or to supplement their opinions by “testifying that a treatise agrees with their opinion.” Schwarz, 695 So. 2d at 455; see also Theus v. State, 922 So. 2d 391, 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (trial court erred in allowing expert witness to refer on direct examination to a scientific article that supported expert’s decision not to conduct a physical examination of the victim); Quarrel v. Minervini, 510 So. 2d 977…
-
McDANNOLD v. State, 959 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…ld’s fatal injuries, not a single fall from a bed. Accordingly, even in the absence of the minimal bolstering, Dr. Aruzza’s testimony dismissed a fall from a bed as a possible cause of the victim’s fatal skull and brain injuries. See Theus v. State, 922 So. 2d 391, 391(Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding improper bolstering of expert testimony amounted to harmless error pursuant to State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986)). The second issue we address is appellant’s eleventh ground for relief, which appellant…
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. Green, 732 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Green v. State, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Ests. OF William H. Schutt v. Robert Spielman and wife, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)