SAMUEL PEREZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND MADISON WEISS

Fla. 5th DCA | 2022-03-14
No. 22-0414
Wallis, J., Sasso, J., Traver, J.
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2022)

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.

Holding

A trial court errs in holding a defendant in direct criminal contempt for conduct that did not occur in the judge's presence, and such contempt proceedings must comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, including providing the defendant a meaningful opportunity to present mitigating evidence and a recital of facts supporting adjudication.

Headnotes

[1] Direct criminal contempt under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 may be punished summarily only when the contemptuous conduct occurs in the actual presence of the…

[2] Conduct occurring outside the judge's presence constitutes indirect criminal contempt and must be prosecuted under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, which require…

Previewing 2 of 5 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
Key Quotes

“A criminal contempt may be punished summarily only if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court.”

This establishes the fundamental requirement that direct criminal contempt must involve conduct occurring in the judge's presence.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Samuel Perez was ordered by a trial court to complete a Batterer's Intervention Program as part of an injunction. Perez failed to complete the 29-week…

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.

Topics
Ability To Comply With Court Order Due Process In Contempt Proceedings Willful Violation Of Court Order Direct Criminal Contempt

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ability To Comply With Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES

TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF

FILED

SAMUEL PEREZ

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D22-414 LT Case Nos. 2021-DR-001655 2022-MM-000483-A

STATE OF FLORIDA and

MADISON WEISS

Respondents. ________________________________/

Opinion filed March 14, 2022

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Shenee M. Craig, of The Legal Justice Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent, State of Florida.

Madison Weiss, Winter Springs, pro se.

WALLIS, J.,

GRANT PETITION, VACATE ORDER, AND REMAND.

SASSO, J., concurs. TRAVER, J., concurs and concurs specially with opinion.

4

Case No. 5D22-414

LT Case Nos. 2021-DR-001655

2022-MM-000483-A

TRAVER, J., concurring specially.

I concur with the majority opinion. Petitioner’s failure to enroll in or complete a batterer’s intervention program (“BIP”) occurred outside the trial court’s presence, and the trial court did not afford Petitioner mandatory due process safeguards. Accordingly, criminal contempt sanctions were unavailable. I write to address the trial court’s apparent frustration with Petitioner’s non-compliance with its BIP order. Following entry of an injunction, the trial court set four different status hearings to monitor Petitioner’s progress in BIP, which is a 29-week program designed to hold perpetrators accountable for their acts and to protect victims and children. See §§ 741.32, 741.325(1), Fla. Stat. (2021). One status hearing got rescheduled, and Petitioner failed to appear at another. A BIP provider discharged Petitioner for excessive absences over this time. Although the trial court ultimately punished Petitioner for failing to fulfill the trial court’s BIP directive, it initially appears the trial court was attempting to coerce him to enroll in and complete the course.

5 Every court has the power to punish contempts against it, whether direct or indirect. § 38.22, Fla. Stat. (2021). The purpose of criminal contempt is to punish, while civil contempt is to obtain compliance with a prior order. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1277 (Fla. 1985). If the trial court wanted Petitioner to comply with its BIP directive, indirect civil contempt proceedings would have provided a more appropriate framework. See id. It appears the trial court may have recognized this; it issued an order to show cause that threatened both civil and criminal contempt penalties. Indirect civil contempt proceedings have procedural requirements. As an initial matter, a trial court cannot hold a party in indirect civil contempt if the trial court’s underlying order is not “sufficiently explicit or precise to put a party on notice of exactly what it must or must not do.” See Wilcoxon v. Moller, 132 So. 3d 281, 286–87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). These proceedings also require basic due process protections like proper notice and time to prepare. See Baldwin v. Baldwin, 204 So. 3d 565, 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Any judgment of civil contempt resulting in incarceration must also include a purge provision. See Bowen, 471 So. 2d at 1277; Dep’t of Child. & Fams. v. R.H., 819 So. 2d 858, 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). A purge provision provides the contemnor the means to eliminate his sanction

Footnotes
2 Samuel Perez ("Petitioner") petitions this court for an emergency writ of habeas corpus, seeking immediate release from custody following the trial court's finding him in direct criminal contempt for his alleged failure to complete a court-ordered Batterer's Intervention Program. We conclude that the trial court erred in holding Petitioner in direct criminal contempt based on conduct that did not occur in the presence of the trial judge. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830 (setting forth procedures applicable in direct criminal contempt proceedings and explaining that "[a] criminal contempt may be punished summarily only if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court"); Plank v. State, 190 So. 3d 594, 606 (Fla. 2016) (explaining that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 governs direct criminal contempt and requires that the contemptuous acts be committed in the presence of the judge, whereas Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 governs indirect criminal contempt, which deals with conduct that occurred outside of the presence of the court and requires evidence to prove). Furthermore, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.830 because it did not allow Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to offer mitigating testimony regarding his enrollment in, and completion of, the program. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830(b) ("The court shall provide the
3 defendant the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances."). In addition, the trial court failed to provide a recital of the facts on which it based the adjudication of guilt. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830(c) (requiring recital of facts on which adjudication of guilt is based). Accordingly, we grant the Petition for Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus, vacate the Order of Contempt, and remand.
6 through compliance, or as commonly stated, the key to his jail cell. See Bowen, 471 So. 2d at 1277. Furthermore, the trial court must find the contemnor willfully violated the subject order, and that he has the ability to comply with the purge provision. See id. at 1279. A written order memorializing these findings is required. See Grant v. Kopp, 27 So. 3d 190, 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). The majority’s opinion does not prevent the trial court from ensuring that Petitioner follows all aspects of its final judgment, including enrollment in, and completion of, BIP. But if the trial court elects to pursue contempt proceedings, it must follow appropriate due process safeguards, no matter what form of contempt it seeks to impose. Finally, I would note that the threat of contempt alone is often sufficient to obviate a contempt proceeding. Indeed, the trial court’s use of status hearings to monitor Petitioner’s compliance, along with its order to show cause, apparently worked. Petitioner had re-enrolled in a class when the trial court adjudged him in contempt. Nothing would have precluded the trial court from setting a short status date and advising Petitioner of potential sanctions for failure to comply in the future.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw