WILLIAM R. WALLENS, PETITIONER,
v.
T. A. BUCHANAN, SHERIFF OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, 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.
William Wallens challenged his detention for civil contempt, arguing that the circuit court's sentencing order was defective because it failed to provide him with the means to purge the contempt and secure his early release. The court agreed and vacated the contempt sentence, holding that civil contempt orders must give the contemnor a clear way to end confinement by complying with the court's directive.
A civil contempt sentence is defective and illegal if it does not explicitly provide the contemnor with the ability to end confinement prior to the fixed term by performing the required acts. The contemnor must "carry the key to his prison in his own pocket" by having a clear path to purge himself of contempt.
“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the fundamental principle that civil contempt sentences must be conditional and subject to purging through compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWallens was ordered by a circuit court to serve 30 days in jail for contempt of court unless he appeared within 10 days at specified offices to give t…
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 Purging Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus seeking to effectuate the discharge of petitioner from custody of the Sheriff-respondent. Petitioner- alleges that he is being illegally detained under a sentence of the circuit court for contempt of court for failure to comply with an order of that court.
Petitioner was incarcerated by the respondent pursuant to the order of a circuit court which provided in pertinent part:
“It is, thereupon, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
“(1) That WILLIAM R. WAL-LENS is guilty of contempt of court.
“(2) It is the sentence of this court that the said WILLIAM R. WAL-LENS serve a term of thirty (30) days in the Dade County Jail unless within ten (10) days from the date of this order he appears at the offices of Sibley, Grusmark, Giblin, King & Levenson, * * * for the purpose of giving testimony in aid of execution in this cause and produce all of the documents required by the aforementioned court order of February 21, 1963,
* * *_
“(3) * * * providing that counsel of record for plaintiff files an affidavit stating that defendant, WILLIAM R. WALLENS did not purge himself of contempt as permitted by paragraph (2) above, that is, by appearing withifr ten (10) days and submitting to deposition.”
It is petitioner’s contention, with which we concur, that the order above quoted was *688defective in that it did not provide the petitioner with the “key of his prison.”
“Customarily when imprisonment is ordered for a civil contempt its continuance is made contingent upon compliance with the order of the court and when the contemnor has so complied he is released from prison. The sentence is usually therefore indefinite and not for a fixed term. It is for this reason that in civil contempt it has been said that the contemnor ‘ “carries the key of his prison in his own pocket.” ’ [Citation omitted.] He can end the sentence and discharge himself at any moment by doing what he previously refused to do.” Demetree v. State ex rel. Marsh, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 498, 501.
The statement in the above quotation from the opinion in Demetree v. State ex rel. Marsh, supra, that a sentence for civil contempt is usually indefinite and not for a fixed term, need not be interpreted to mean that the sentence should not be for a stated time, but rather that it is indefinite in the sense that the period of confinement as it may be set out in such an order can be shortened or ended by purging the contempt. Thus, in Dykes v. Dykes, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 598, in which this court quoted from and followed Demetree v. State ex rel. Marsh, supra, we approved a civil contempt order which sentenced a divorce defendant husband to confinement for a stated period, for willful disobedience of child support orders, but held that such an order should show the act necessary to purge the contempt (amount of defaulted child support necessary to be paid, in that case) and that the order should provide the contemnor could gain his release prior to the time fixed by purging himself of the contempt.
The order under consideration did not provide that petitioner could end his sentence at any time prior to completion by performing the acts required. In this respect, the defect was fatal, and therefore, petitioner is illegally detained by virtue of an illegal order. However, it would serve no useful purpose to amend the 30 days confinement order in this case to provide that the contemnor could gain his release upon pui-ging himself. This is so because the evidence was to be produced in a proceeding for the enforcement of a summary judgment, which proceedings are no longer pending because the judgment subsequently was reversed. See Wallens v. Lichtenstein, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 912. The contem-nor having announced willingness to purge himself but lacking a place in which to do so, it would appear the interests of justice require that he be treated as though he had earned his release by purging himself of the contempt.
Accordingly, the petition is granted and the judgment and sentence of contempt vacated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Damkohler v. Heidi Damkohler (Pollmann), 336 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…se fails to recognize and carry into effect the rule established in Florida that in a case of civil contempt the contemnor “carries the key of his prison in his own pocket.” State v. Anderson, 168 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Wallens v. Buchanan, 168 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); In Re: S. L. T., 180 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). This portion of the contempt order is invalid on its face and must be reversed. The remainder of the order is affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further pr…
-
Tabas v. Alice lola Hudson, 175 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…the right to purge himself of the contempt. See and compare: Dykes v. Dykes, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 598; Lord v. Lord, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 624; State ex rel. Byrd v. Anderson, Fla. App.1964, 168 So. 2d 554; Wallens v. Buchanan, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 687.…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Salvatore C. Pipia v. Buchanan, 168 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…key to his prison. The order did not provide that petitioner could purge himself of his civil contempt at any time prior to the termination of his specific sentence by complying with the required judicial action. Wallens v. Buchanan, Fla. App.1964, 168 So. 2d 687 (opinion filed October 27, 1964). Accordingly, the petition is granted, the sentence vacated and the prisoner is discharged, forthwith.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Demetree v. State of Fla. ex rel. John D. Marsh, 89 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1956)
- Dykes v. Dykes, 104 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Wallens v. Lichtenstein, 159 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)