SHARON MCDANIEL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's order finding the appellant guilty of criminal contempt and sentencing her to jail.
The appellant was found guilty of criminal contempt during a divorce case where she was a subpoenaed witness. She appealed the contempt order and sent…
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 Compelled Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals from an order finding her guilty of criminal contempt and sentencing her to ninety (90) days in the Dade County jail.
The contempt order was entered against her during a bitterly contested divorce case in which she was a prospective witness who had been subpoenaed to testify at the final hearing. Her testimony would have been relevant and material to the issues therein.
The record reflects competent, substantial evidence to sustain the finding of a direct contempt committed in the immediate presence of the court. See State ex rel. Luban v. Coleman, 138 Fla. 555, 189 So. 713 (1939); Thiede v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 490; In re S. L. T., Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 374; and United States v. Appel, 211 F. 495 (S.D.N.Y.1913).
Appellant did not make any claim in the trial court that she was being compelled to testify against herself and no reversible error has been shown in this regard. Hargis v. Fla. Real Estate Commission, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 419.
The record shows that appellant was represented by counsel of her own choice at the hearing and consulted with him prior to its commencement. There was no motion for continuance presented on her behalf during the proceedings. Her claim, therefore, that she was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Coyner v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 715 and Everett v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 714. The order and sentence are
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chavez-Rey v. Chavez-Rey, 213 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…that the requirements set forth by the Second District Court of Appeal in Sharp are not applicable because the case before us involves a direct contempt, a contemptuous act committed in the presence of the court. Cf. McDaniel v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 505 (opinion filed August 13, 1968). The procedural requirements for prosecuting a direct criminal contempt are set forth in Rule 1.830, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure: “A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the c…
-
Abbay v. State, 219 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 213 So. 2d 505.…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of S. L. T., 180 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Everett v. State, 161 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- State ex rel. Sherman Luban v. Coleman, 138 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1939)
- Coyner v. State, 177 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Thiede v. State, 189 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Hargis v. The Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Earle L. Mann, 174 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)