DANIEL ENSIGN, 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.
Daniel Ensign appealed his conviction for indirect criminal contempt arising from interference with a truancy court order. The Florida appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to comply with multiple procedural requirements under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, including failure to advise of right to counsel, failure to inform of the accusation, and failure to recite facts supporting the contempt finding.
The trial court violated multiple requirements of Rule 3.840 by failing to advise Ensign of his right to counsel, failing to inform him of the accusation and judgment, failing to inquire whether he had cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced, failing to afford an opportunity to present mitigating evidence, and failing to include a recital of facts constituting the contempt in the judgment.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by failing to advise a defendant of their right to counsel in an indirect criminal contempt proceeding when the defendant does not…
[2] Prior to pronouncing sentence in an indirect criminal contempt proceeding, a judge must inform the defendant of the accusation and judgment against them and inquire as to…
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“The defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel.”
Establishes that Rule 3.840(d) guarantees the right to counsel in indirect criminal contempt proceedings, which must not be waived without the defendant's knowing consent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEnsign was found guilty of indirect criminal contempt for interfering with a truancy court order requiring his stepdaughter to attend school every day…
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 Indirect Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
Daniel Ensign appeals an order finding him guilty of indirect criminal contempt for interfering with a truancy court order requiring his stepdaughter to attend school every day. He contends that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to comply with several requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. The State concedes error, and we reverse for further proceedings.
First, rule 3.840(d) provides in relevant part that “[t]he defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel.” At the hearing 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 *355erred 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 sentence should not be pronounced. The defendant shall be afforded the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances.” Ensign was not fully afforded these rights.
The trial court failed to comply with the requirements of rule 3.840(g) by failing to inform Ensign of the accusation against him and by failing to ask him if he has any cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced. In addition, while the trial court gave Ensign an opportunity to make a statement regarding whether he prevented his stepdaughter from attending school, the trial court failed to give him an opportunity to present mitigating evidence in regard to his sentence. See Gooden v. State, 931 So.2d 146, 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Mendana v. Mendana, 911 So.2d 130, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
Rule 3.840(f) also requires a judgment of guilty to include “a recital of the facts constituting the contempt of which the defendant has been found and adjudicated guilty.” The trial court’s snap out order failed to include the requisite recital of facts constituting the contempt. While oral statements placed on the record may satisfy this requirement of rule 3.840(f), see Gidden v. State, 613 So.2d 457, 460 (Fla.1993), the trial court failed to state on the record the facts supporting the trial court’s finding of contempt by Ensign. See Martinez v. State, 976 So.2d 1222,1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (‘While this requirement is waived when there are sufficient oral findings made on the record, the trial court failed to meet even this requirement.”).
Because the trial court failed to follow several requirements of rule 3.840, we reverse the order of contempt and remand for further proceedings consistent with rule 3.840.
Reversed and remanded.
WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sockwell v. State, 123 So. 3d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
-
Podolsky v. State, 118 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
-
Bret Mayo v. Kerry Mayo O/ B/ O Natalie Gracyn Mayo and Madeline Olivia Mayo, 260 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gidden v. State, 613 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1993)
- Mendana v. Mendana, 911 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Ingram v. State, 933 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Martinez v. State, 976 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Magwood v. State, 931 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Green v. State, 931 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)