DORIS JANE MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon a review of the briefs, the record on appeal and having heard oral argument, we are of the opinion that appellant has demonstrated reversible error with respect to the proposition that the judgment of contempt fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 3.840(a)(6), FRCrP, and with respect to the imposition of a sentence to hard labor. The judgment did not include a recital of the facts constituting the contempt upon which the appellant was found and adjudicated guilty; moreover, a person convicted of criminal contempt may not be sentenced to hard labor. Moore v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 245 So. 2d 880; State ex rel. Saunders v. Boyer, Fla. App.1964, 166 So. 2d 694. We find no merit, however, to the appellant’s other contentions. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons the judgment and sentence are set aside and the cause remanded to the trial court for the entry of a proper judgment and sentence consistent herewith.
OWEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur. CROSS, J., concurs in part, and dissents in part, with opinion.
CROSS, Judge
(concurring in part, and dissenting in part) :
I concur in that part of the majority opinion that appellant demonstrated reversible error with respect to the judgment of contempt for failing to comply with Rule 3.840(a)(6), FRCrP, and the imposition of sentence to hard labor. However, I dissent from that part of the majority opinion that no other error existed. It is apparent from the record that process was never properly served upon Doris Jane Miller. Therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the appellant-defendant, Doris Jane Miller, to adjudge her in contempt of court.
Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and sentence and discharge the defendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDONALD v. State, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ule 3.830, RCrP.1 [*458] Manning v. State, Fla.App.1970, 234 So. 2d 16; Berman v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 144; Speller v. State, Fla.App.1974, 305 So. 2d 231; Krathen v. State, Fla.App.1975, 310 So. 2d 381; cf. Miller v. State, Fla.App.1975, 305 So. 2d 826. Moreover, we hold that the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of fifteen contempts rather than one. We are of the opinion that when a witness improperly refuses to answer a series of questions pertaining to the subject matter of an inves…
-
Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…tions. MOORE, J., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur. . Jacobs v. State, 327 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); McDonald v. State, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Weech v. State, 309 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), and Miller v. State, 305 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). . Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968).…
-
White v. Buck, 505 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…y of indirect criminal contempt. Because the order fails to follow Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(a)(6), we set aside the judgment. The rule requires the order to set forth the [*37] facts upon which the judgment is based. Miller v. State, 305 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Moore v. State, 245 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Contempt proceedings often result in jail sentences, as did this one. For that reason the court must follow the law with precision, both to advise the accused and to permit mean…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 245 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Burger v. Liselotte Burger, 166 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)