MICHAEL JENSEN, PETITIONER,
v.
TRACY JENSEN, 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.
Florida appellate court granted habeas corpus relief and ordered release of petitioner held in direct criminal contempt, finding the trial court violated procedural requirements and lacked sufficient evidentiary basis for the contempt finding.
A trial court's finding of direct criminal contempt must comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, which requires the defendant an opportunity to show cause and present evidence before sentencing.
[1] A trial court must comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 by providing the defendant an opportunity to show cause and present evidence of excusing or mitiga…
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 intelligenceMichael Jensen was found in direct criminal contempt by a trial court during dissolution proceedings for being "generally uncooperative and disrespect…
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 Opportunity To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Jensen petitioned this court for habeas corpus relief after he was found in direct criminal contempt by the trial court and sentenced to thirty days of incarceration. Mr. Jensen maintained in his petition that the evidence did not support a finding of contempt, and that the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. We agreed and ordered his immediate release from custody indicating that this opinion would follow.
The facts are uncomplicated. At the conclusion of a hearing held in the dissolution proceedings below, the trial judge announced that he was holding Mr. Jensen in contempt of court for being “generally uncooperative and disrespectful.” The court immediately sentenced him to thirty days incarceration. A transcript of the hearing reveals, however, that the judge neither gave Mr. Jensen an opportunity to show *151cause why he should not be found guilty of contempt, nor a chance to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances before being held in contempt and sentenced. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830. Additionally, we note that the basis for the contempt determination was insufficient to support such a finding.
PETITION GRANTED.
MONACO, C.J., TORPY and JACOBUS, JJ„ concur.