PHILLIP HUNTER, 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.
The court held that the contempt order must be reversed because the trial court failed to satisfy procedural due process requirements.
Phillip Hunter was found guilty of direct criminal contempt for obstructive and profane behavior during civil proceedings. He appealed the contempt or…
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 Direct Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
Phillip Hunter appeals an order adjudicating him guilty of direct criminal contempt, imposing a fíne, and committing him to jail for five days. The direct contempt charge arose from a civil matter in which Mr. Hunter became obstructive and profane during the proceedings. The record suggests that the jail sentence may have been fully served already. But even if it has been served, the case is not moot, and procedural due process concerns compel us to reverse the contempt order.
Mr. Hunter maintains that the trial court did not satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.880 in several respects. He claims that it failed to apprise him of the accusation against him, failed to offer him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty, failed to give him an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence, and failed to pronounce his sentence in open court. Although we do not disturb the trial court’s findings with respect to Mr. Hunter’s contemptuous conduct, we must reverse the contempt order because the record does not demonstrate that the trial court satisfied these procedural requirements.
On remand, the trial court is not required by our mandate to conduct further proceedings. If the trial court determines that it is appropriate to reinstate the judgment of contempt, it must conduct a hearing, upon proper notice to Mr. Hunter, in order to give him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty and to afford him an opportunity to present mitigating or excusing evidence. Following any hearing, if the court determines the judgment of contempt should be reinstated, it should give due regard to principles of double jeopardy when imposing any sanction.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND, VILLANTI, and CRENSHAW, JJ„ concur.