A.W., A CHILD, 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.
A juvenile appeals a contempt of court detention order, arguing the trial court violated Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150(a) by failing to comply with due process requirements. The appellate court agrees, finding the detention order lacked the required factual recitation and failed to provide the juvenile an opportunity to present mitigating evidence.
The trial court did not comply with Rule 8.150(a). The detention order failed to recite the specific facts constituting the contempt, stated only conclusory language about being disrespectful, and did not provide the juvenile a meaningful opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances before adjudication.
[1] A trial court's written order adjudging a party in criminal contempt must include a recital of the facts upon which the adjudication is based.
[2] Attorneys are expected to know and follow a trial court's rulings without explicit admonishment for every instance of non-compliance.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150(a) controls direct contempt proceedings for juveniles... Prior to the adjudication of guilt the court shall inform the person accused of the accusation and inquire as to whether there is any cause to show why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court and sentenced therefor. The accused shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.”
States the procedural requirements for contempt adjudication in juvenile cases that the trial court failed to follow
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe juvenile was adjudicated delinquent on charges of firearm possession by a minor and making a false report. He was committed to a moderate risk com…
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 Present Mitigating Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
A juvenile appeals a detention order, placing him in secure detention for contempt of court. He argues the court committed fundamental error in failing to follow the due process requirements of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150(a). We agree and reverse.
The State charged the juvenile with possession of a firearm by a minor and making a false report of a crime. The juvenile entered an open, no-contest plea, and the trial court set the case for a disposition hearing. The Department of Juvenile Justice recommended probation, but the State sought a residential commitment program. The trial court adjudicated the juvenile delinquent, committed him to a moderate risk commitment program, and ordered him to appear in court two days later for a pre-commitment physical examination.
When the juvenile returned for the physical, the following exchange took place:
THE COURT: Why were you late this morning?
THE JUVENILE: I wasn’t late. I’ve been here.
THE COURT: Any reason why I shouldn’t hold you in contempt of court for the way you’re acting? Any reason? All right. I’ll hold you in direct contempt of court. Five days in the detention center for acting disrespectful to the Court. Go ahead and take him down. And do his, his physical.
*523The trial court entered a written detention order detaining the juvenile for five days “for being disrespectful to the court when asked why he was late for court.” From this order, the juvenile appeals.
We review a direct criminal contempt order for an abuse of discretion. G.G.J. v. State, 28 So.Bd 239, 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
“Contempt is an act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the trial court in the administration of justice or which is calculated to lessen its authority or dignity.” M.W. v. Lofthiem, 855 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “Contempt does not exist just because a judge feels aggrieved or vexed.” McRoy v. State, 31 So.3d 273, 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Via v. State, 633 So.2d 1198, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)).
Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150(a) controls direct contempt proceedings for juveniles. It provides:
[Direct] contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court. The judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital of those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based. Prior to the adjudication of guilt the court shall inform the person accused of the accusation and inquire as to whether there is any cause to show why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court and sentenced therefor. The accused shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. The judgment shall be signed by the court and entered of record. Sentence shall be pronounced in open court.
(Emphasis added).
“Purely conclusory statements will not meet the requirement of a recitation of facts.” McRoy, 31 So.3d at 274. Here, the detention order recited only “for contempt of court for 5 days for being disrespectful to the court when asked why he was late for court.” This was insufficient to comply with Rule 8.150(a). J.AH. v. State, 20 So.3d 425, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (contempt order “ ‘based on his statements, demeanor, and behavior during [the] hearing’” did not comply with rule 3.830).
The court also failed to give the juvenile “the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.” “Merely asking the defendant if he wishes to explain his behavior does not meet the procedural requirement that he be given an opportunity to present evidence.” Searcy v. State, 971 So.2d 1008, 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing O’Neal v. State,. 501 So.2d 98, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). Here, the trial court simply asked, “Any reason why I shouldn’t hold you in contempt of court for the way you’re acting? Any reason? All right. I’ll hold you in direct contempt of court.”
There may have been other contemptuous nonverbal actions on the part of the child, but the record does not reflect them. We also note that no judgment was entered as required by Rule 8.150(a). On the record before us, we must reverse and remand the case for the court to vacate the contempt order.
Reversed and Remanded.
STEVENSON and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swain v. State, 226 So. 3d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…’s second contempt charge in its entirety. Appellant’s next issue relates to the trial - court’s failure to strictly follow the procedures of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. Such a failure constitutes fundamental error. See A.W. v. State, 137 So. 3d 521, 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding a trial court commits fundamental error by failing to follow Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150, the juvenile rule equivalent of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830); see also Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d…
-
M.J. v. State, 202 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ether the defendant can show cause as to why he or she should not be held in contempt, and give the defendant the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830; Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150; A. W. v. State, 137 So. 3d 521, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “The rules of criminal contempt must be strictly followed so as to protect the due process rights of the defendant.” State v. Diaz de la Portilla, 177 So. 3d 965, 973 (Fla.2015) (citing Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422,…
-
Golant v. State, 202 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…is conduct was contemptuous, the court’s characterization of Mr. Golant’s behavior as “disrespectful” did not amount to the required notice of the accusation against Mr. Golant, rendering his opportunity to show cause meaningless. See A.W. v. State, 137 So. 3d 521, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding that the trial court did not comply with the juvenile procedure counterpart to Rule 3.830 where the court “simply asked, ‘Any reason why I shouldn’t hold you in contempt of court for the way you’re acting?’ ”). The…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Searcy v. State, 971 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- O'Neal v. State, 501 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- J.A.H. v. State of Fla. & Dep't of Child. & Families, 20 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- VIA v. State, 633 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- McROY v. State, 31 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- M.W. v. Lofthiem, 855 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)