JAMES CALVIN INGRAM, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
James Calvin Ingram appeals his criminal contempt conviction and six-month jail sentence after failing to appear for trial pursuant to a subpoena served on his mother. The appellate court reversed, finding that Ingram was denied his right to counsel at the contempt hearing in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(d), which the State conceded.
The court reversed Ingram's criminal contempt conviction, finding that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(d) entitles the defendant to counsel at such hearings, and Ingram was never advised of or given the opportunity to waive this right. The State conceded this error.
[1] A defendant facing criminal contempt charges is entitled to be represented by counsel.
[2] A defendant must be advised of their right to counsel in criminal contempt proceedings.
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“rule 3.840(d) clearly states that 'the defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel.' It is undisputed that Mr. Ingram was never advised of, and did not knowingly waive, this right.”
The court's primary basis for reversal—the deprivation of the right to counsel at the criminal contempt hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury trial witness subpoena was issued and apparently served on Ingram's mother at their home in August 2005. Ingram did not appear for trial as ord…
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 Burden Of Proof In Contempt Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
James Calvin Ingram appeals his adjudication for contempt of court and his sentence of six months’ incarceration in the Polk County Jail. The State concedes error. A jury trial witness subpoena was issued for Mr. Ingram. It apparently was served at his home on his mother in August 2005. Mr. Ingram did not appear for the trial as ordered. The State petitioned for a rule to show cause, asking the trial court to require Mr. Ingram to appear and explain why he should not be held in contempt. The petition made no reference to criminal contempt.
Apparently, the trial court issued a rule to show cause, although no such document is in our record and no proof of its service on Mr. Ingram appears in our record. Mr. Ingram appeared for the hearing on September 23, 2005. As permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(d), the hearing and all questioning was conducted by Judge Roger A. Alcott. Prior to placing Mr. Ingram under oath, Judge Alcott determined from Mr. Ingram that he lived with his mother and that she had received the subpoena. The judge then explained to Mr. Ingram, “the burden is on you to show” why “you shouldn’t be held in contempt.” The judge then placed Mr. Ingram under oath. Mr. Ingram explained that he had attended a deposition in the case and had been told that he would be notified if he was needed for trial. Mr. Ingram claimed he had not received further notice to appear for the trial and did not think he needed to attend.
Thereafter, the following colloquy took place:
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Molloy, anything?
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY MOLLOY [who was not sworn]: During that deposition I asked him if he was going to show up he said, “he wasn’t' — • wasn’t sure.” I said, “you know the Judge could put you in jail for six months if you don’t show up.” He goes “well, if I decide not to I’ll suffer the consequences.”
The judge then asked Mr. Ingram if he “remember[ed] that conversation,” and Mr. Ingram agreed that he did. He further explained that when he had talked to a detective, he had told the detective that he did not want to have anything to do with the case, and the detective told Mr. Ingram that he would not be bothered with any of it.
The judge informed Mr. Ingram that he could “take that up with the detective” after he got out of jail. He found Mr. Ingram in criminal contempt, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to six months in jail. When Mr. Ingram asked to be able to return his father’s car before going to jail, the judge said: “Nope. You may begin serving your sentence right now.”
We note that the initial transcript received by this court from the Electronic Court Reporter for the Tenth Judicial Circuit claimed that Mr. Ingram was represented by counsel during this hearing. A corrected transcript reflected that he had no attorney.
Without discussing all of the numerous issues that might warrant a reversal in this case, we note that rule 3.840(d) clearly states that “the defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel.” It is undisputed that Mr. Ingram was never advised of, and did not knowingly waive, this right. The State concedes this error. Accordingly, we reverse the order of criminal contempt.
Reversed.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moorman v. Hatfield, 958 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…tempt hearing. This record was sufficient to require the reversal of Ingram’s conviction; indeed the State conceded that reversal was required. Accordingly, this court has already issued an opinion reversing the order on appeal. See Ingram v. State, 933 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Nevertheless, the petitioners argue that we should not dismiss or deny this portion of the petition as moot. They claim that errors in transcripts under the new methods of electronic or digital recording are so pervasive that we…
-
Ensign v. State, 67 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ing on the order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt, the trial court failed to advise Ensign of his right to counsel and Ensign did not knowingly waive his right to counsel. The trial court [*355] erred in this regard. See Ingram v. State, 933 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Rule 3.840(g) also provides that prior to pronouncing sentence, “the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation and judgment against the defendant and inquire as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why se…
-
Podolsky v. State, 118 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…his right to counsel; nevertheless, the court proceeded to find him guilty of indirect criminal contempt and sentenced him to six months in jail. This was error. See Ensign v. State, 67 So. 3d 353, 354-55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing Ingram v. State, 933 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence for indirect criminal contempt must be reversed. Reversed and remanded. CRENSHAW and SLEET, JJ., Concur.…