F.P., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 trial court's order finding F.P. in indirect contempt and ordering detention is quashed because it failed to follow mandatory procedures.
F.P. petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after being held in contempt and ordered detained for ten days. The trial court did not follow the require…
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
F.P. petitions this court for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus releasing him from the custody of the Orange County Juvenile Detention Center following the trial court’s order finding him to be in indirect contempt of court and directing that he be detained for ten days. Because the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedures for indirect contempt set forth in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150 and section 985.037, Florida Statutes (2017), we grant the writ and quash the order of contempt.
We recognize that F.P.’s ten-day detention has expired and that he was released, technically rendering the petition moot. However, there are several petitions pending in our court which similarly allege that *763orders of indirect contempt, resulting in short-term detentions, are being entered without the courts complying with rule 8.150 and section 985.037. Therefore, “this case presents a controversy capable of repetition, yet evading review, which should be considered on its merits.” N.W. v. State, 767 So.2d 446, 447 n.2 (Fla. 2000); see also Kelley v. Rice, 800 So.2d 247, 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); AW. v. State, 711 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction and choose to consider the merits of the petition.
“[A] prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure] 8.150 and section 985.037.” KM. v. State, 962 So.2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So.2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Here, the trial court did not follow these procedures, resulting in a failure to provide F.P. with due process. Accordingly, we determine that F.P. was entitled to immediate release from custody. The order of detention is quashed.
PETITION GRANTED
EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.R. v. State, 216 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. D.R. petitions this court for habeas relief, challenging his detention for indirect contempt of court. For the reasons set forth in F.P. v. State, 216 So. 3d 762, 762-63, 2017 WL 1423578 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 21, 2017), and J.H. v. State, 216 So. 3d 761, 761-62, 2017 WL 1423577 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 21, 2017), we grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order of detention. PETITION GRANTED. TORPY and EVA…
Authorities Cited
- N.W. v. State, 767 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2000)
- Telisia Shaonte Kelley v. Rice, 800 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- A.W. v. State, 711 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- K.M. v. State of Fla. & Daryl Wolfe, 962 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)