T.T., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
A juvenile sought habeas corpus relief after being placed in secure detention for alleged indirect criminal contempt without a required 24-hour hearing. The appellate court granted the petition, finding the trial court violated Florida's statutory requirement to conduct the contempt hearing within 24 hours.
The trial court violated T.T.'s statutory rights by failing to hold the contempt hearing within 24 hours. Accordingly, T.T. is entitled to immediate release from secure detention.
[1] A statute requiring a hearing within 24 hours for indirect criminal contempt against a juvenile must be strictly followed.
[2] A juvenile charged with indirect contempt of court must have a hearing within 24 hours to determine if a valid court order was violated.
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“If a child is charged with indirect contempt of court, the court must hold a hearing within 24 hours to determine whether the child committed indirect contempt of a valid court order.”
The statutory requirement that the trial court violated by scheduling the hearing for July 3, 2006 instead of within 24 hours.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT.T. was arrested on battery charges on April 12, 2006, pleaded not guilty on May 4, 2006, and was placed in parental custody with a curfew requiremen…
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 Secure Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
T.T., a juvenile, arguing that the trial court failed to schedule and conduct an indirect criminal contempt hearing within 24 hours as required by statute, seeks from this court a writ of habeas corpus. We grant his petition.
On April 12, 2006, T.T. was arrested on battery charges. On May 4, 2006, T.T. pled not guilty at arraignment. On that same date, the trial court placed T.T. in the custody of a parent or guardian and issued an order that among other things, required the child to observe the curfew set by his parent or guardian. The court then scheduled an adjudicatory hearing for June 20, 2006.
At the June 20, 2006 adjudicatory hearing T.T. was found guilty of battery. At the same time, T.T.’s mother alleged that T.T. had violated his curfew two days ear- Her. Consequently, the court issued an order to show cause for violation of the behavior order and set a hearing for indirect contempt of court for July 3, 2006, the same date for the scheduled disposition hearing. The court also ordered that T.T. be held in secure detention pending the indirect contempt of court hearing.
In the instant petition, filed in this court on June 29, 2006, T.T. argues that the trial court has violated his statutory and due process rights by failing to schedule and conduct an indirect criminal contempt hearing within 24 hours, as required by section 985.216(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2005) and placing him in secure detention pending the indirect contempt hearing. We agree.
Section 985.216(4)(b) states in pertinent part: “If a child is charged with indirect contempt of court, the court must hold a hearing within 24 hours to determine whether the child committed indirect contempt of a valid court order.” (Emphasis added.) Further, according to section 985.216(2)(a), “A delinquent child who has been held in direct or indirect contempt may be placed in a secure detention facility not to exceed 5 days for a first offense and not to exceed 15 days for a second or subsequent offense.” In the instant case, as of the date of the filing of the petition, no contempt hearing has been conducted, but T.T. has already been held for nine days, which exceeds the five days for a first offense under section 985.216(2)(a).
Accordingly, we grant the petition and order that T.T. be released from secure detention immediately.
PETITION GRANTED.
THOMPSON, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.