J.M.H., 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.
J.M.H., a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for battery and placed on probation, was later cited for indirect criminal contempt for violating probation conditions and was ordered to serve time in secure detention. She appealed the trial court's partial denial of her motion to correct disposition, arguing she should receive credit for time served in secure detention on the contempt charges. The court affirmed the denial of credit for contempt time but remanded for specification of credited days on the original offense.
The trial court did not err in denying J.M.H. credit for time served in secure detention on her contempt charges because each violation of the probation order constitutes a separate and distinct act of contempt, and the trial court properly sentenced her to consecutive sentences pursuant to statute. However, the court remanded for the trial court to enter the specific number of days to be credited for time served on the original offense.
[1] A juvenile is not entitled to credit for time served in secure detention for contempt charges when those charges arise from separate and distinct violations of a probatio…
[2] Each violation of a probation order constitutes a separate and distinct act of contempt.
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“each violation of the probation order constitutes a separate and distinct act of contempt”
Establishes the legal principle that successive probation violations are treated as separate contempt charges, precluding credit for time served across violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.M.H. was adjudicated delinquent for battery and placed on probation. She violated probation on numerous occasions by violating curfew, school tardin…
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
J.M.H. was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation for battery. After violating her probation on numerous occasions, she was committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice for a period not to exceed 365 days — the same period of time as the maximum sentence had the offense been committed by an adult. See *693§ 784.03(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). During the pendency of the probation proceedings, J.M.H. was cited for indirect criminal contempt for violating her curfew, school tardiness and lack of attendance, and a positive drug test. The trial court issued a number of orders to show cause relating to J.M.H.’s actions. The court then ordered J.M.H. to serve time in secure detention for contempt. J.M.H. now appeals the order partially denying her motion to correct disposition, asserting that the trial court should have granted credit for time served in secure detention on her indirect contempt charges. We affirm the partial denial of her motion to correct disposition but remand for the trial court to enter the specific number of days to be credited regarding the portion of the motion that was granted.
The trial court did not err in denying J.M.H. credit for time served in secure detention for J.M.H.’s contempt charges. This case is similar to J.M. v. Gargett in which the trial court sentenced a minor to consecutive sentences for successive acts of indirect contempt following the violation of a single order of probation. 53 So.3d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), approved) 101 So.3d 352 (Fla.2012). Upon review of this court’s decision, the supreme court noted that “each violation of the probation order constitutes a separate and distinct act of contempt.” J.M., 101 So.3d at 356. The statutory scheme itself contemplates this exact situation and calls for trial courts to limit contempt sentences to five days for the first instance and fifteen days for each successive instance. See id. (discussing section 985.037, Florida Statutes (2010)).1 Because each violation is a separate act of contempt, J.M., 101 So.3d at 356, and the trial court sentenced J.M.H. to consecutive sentences pursuant to statute, J.M.H. is not entitled to credit for time served for the contempt charges. The reverse is true for all the days spent in detention on the original offense, as the trial court’s order explicitly recognizes.
However, because the order on the motion to correct sentence fails to specify the specific number of days to be credited in accordance with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d), we remand for entry of the specific number of days only.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
SILBERMAN, C.J., and NORTHCUTT J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.A. v. Housel, 271 So. 3d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…impose more than twenty days of secure detention, no matter how many acts of contempt were committed or how egregious they were. Id. at 356-57 (quoting K.Q.S. v. State, 975 So. 2d 536, 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). Similarly, in J.M.H. v. State, 112 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), the Second District Court of Appeal upheld a contempt order imposing consecutive sentences for multiple violations of a single probation order. Citing the holding in J.M., the court stated, “[t]he statutory scheme itself cont…
Authorities Cited
- J.M. v. Gargett, 101 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 2012)
- J.M. v. Gargett, 53 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)