ALEJANDRO O. ANTON, APPELLANT,
v.
BEATRIZ RODRIGUEZ ANTON, 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.
Alejandro Anton appeals a finding of indirect criminal contempt and order of commitment in a dissolution of marriage case. The Third District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 by failing to issue a show cause order and adequately notify Anton of the potential criminal penalty before the contempt hearing.
No. The trial court's failure to issue a show cause order and failure to provide adequate notice that a criminal penalty could be imposed constituted fundamental error, requiring reversal of the indirect criminal contempt finding.
[1] A court must comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 before imposing a sentence for indirect criminal contempt.
[2] A defendant facing indirect criminal contempt must receive notice of the essential facts constituting the contempt and an opportunity to show cause why a sentence should…
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 sets forth the procedural safeguards that a court must enforce prior to the imposition of a sentence for indirect criminal contempt. The defendant must receive notice of the essential facts that constitute the criminal contempt and have an opportunity to show cause why the sentence should not be imposed.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirements for indirect criminal contempt proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, Beatriz Rodriguez Anton filed motions for contempt against her husband Alejandro seeking enforcement of a court 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 Opportunity To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
Alejandro 0. Anton appeals a finding of indirect criminal contempt and order of commitment alleging that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. We agree and reverse.
Rule 3.840 sets forth the procedural safeguards that a court must enforce prior to the imposition of a sentence for indirect criminal contempt.1 The defendant must receive notice of the essential facts that constitute the criminal contempt and have an opportunity to show cause why the sentence should not be imposed.
Appellee Beatriz Rodriguez Anton initiated the contempt proceeding below in this dissolution of marriage case. The record reflects that she filed numerous motions for contempt, seeking compliance with a court order that prohibited the husband from having any direct or indirect contact with any of the tenants of a multi-unit residential apartment building, which is a marital asset. The husband appeared at the contempt hearing at which he admitted that he violated the terms of the court’s order. The court, however, did not issue a show cause order, and neither the notice of hearing on the wife’s various contempt motions nor the motions she filed placed the husband on notice that he potentially faced a criminal penalty at that contempt hearing. Thus, the court’s finding of indirect criminal contempt constituted fundamental error. See Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla.1977); De Castro v. De Castro, 957 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
We therefore reverse the court’s finding of indirect criminal contempt without prejudice.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maher v. Junior, 198 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…he August 3 show cause hearing did not advise Maher that he was subject to criminal contempt proceedings. J.M.P.U. v. State, 858 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Maher was -not advised that he faced a criminal penalty at that- hearing. Anton v. Anton, 106 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The notice warned Maher that failure to appear at the hearing “may result in the court issuing a writ of bodily attachment.” Maher did appear. The trial court’s failure to follow the procedures for contempt merits issuance of th…
-
DE LA Portilla v. State, 142 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…further proceedings during which appellant may be given the opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt and to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances in compliance with Rule 3.830.”); Anton v. Anton, 106 So. 3d 34, 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (reversing an indirect contempt order “without prejudice” to further proceedings). But these cases differ from the situation here, which involves a claim of evi-dentiary insufficiency. In response to the State’s recommendatio…
-
Hash v. State of Fla. & Reschin Moore, 135 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ion of a sentence for indirect criminal contempt ... [a] defendant must receive notice of the essential facts that constitute the criminal contempt [*352] and have an opportunity to show cause why the sentence should not be imposed.” Anton v. Anton, 106 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.840(a), (g). “Due process of law requires that the accused be sufficiently advised of the charge so as to accord him reasonable opportunity to meet the charges by way of defense or explanation.” Deter…
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
- Rocco Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977)
- Yilka de Castro v. Scorpio de Castro, 957 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)