JEROME BROOKS, APPELLANT,
v.
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a direct criminal contempt adjudication against Brooks, holding that an order requiring handwriting exemplars lacked sufficient specificity regarding time, place, and recipient, and that Brooks substantially complied by providing the exemplars before trial.
Brooks was not in contempt and must be discharged. The order lacked sufficient specificity regarding compliance requirements, and Brooks substantially complied by providing the exemplars before trial, with no demonstrated prejudice to the State.
[1] A party cannot be held in criminal contempt for failing to comply with an order that is not sufficiently specific as to the time, place, and recipient for compliance.
[2] A party's compliance with a court order, even if not in the most timely fashion, may preclude a finding of contempt when the order lacks specificity.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The Order did not specify any time within which the Appellant was to furnish the exemplars, it did not specify a place to furnish the exemplars nor did it specify to whom the exemplars were to be furnished.”
Establishes the critical deficiency in the trial court's order—lack of specificity regarding compliance requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial judge ordered appellant Brooks to provide handwriting exemplars to the State for comparison purposes. The order, both oral and later written…
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 Handwriting Exemplars cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
We review an Order adjudging Appellant in direct criminal contempt and reverse. The trial judge ordered the Appellant to give handwriting exemplars to the State for comparison purposes. This was an oral order later reduced to writing. The Order did not specify any time within which the Appellant was to furnish the exemplars, it did not specify a place to furnish the exemplars nor did it specify to whom the exemplars were to be furnished. It said: “The State’s Motion for Handwriting Exemplars is granted.” Also, the Motion did not specify to whom, where and when the exemplars were to be furnished. The Appellant made contact with Phil Sellers, the investigator for the State’s Attorneys’ office and discussed a time and place to furnish the exemplars. They were furnished before trial and on the day of trial. We are aware of no motion by the State to continue the trial nor are we aware of any demonstrated prejudice to the State on account of the Appellant and Mr. Sellers not attending to the matter before the day of trial. Because the Motion and Order did not fully set out what had to be done to comply and because Appellant did comply with the Order, albeit maybe not in the most timely fashion, we find the Defendant not to be in contempt.
Additionally it is noted the trial court failed to comply with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830 in that a proper order was not entered. Because we determine the Appellant was not in contempt, and is to be discharged, we shall not discuss the correctly maintained points that if the Appellant did commit a contempt violation it was indirect criminal contempt and as such the trial court was required to give certain procedural rights to the Appellant. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.840 and Krueger v. State, 351 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3rd DCA opinion filed August 2, 1977).
ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baranko v. State, 406 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…parison by the state’s handwriting expert. Appellant points to no other undisclosed witness or evidence presented by the state. We agree with appellant’s contention that contempt is a proper remedy for enforcement of discovery. Cf. Brooks v. State, 350 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). It may even be the preferred remedy, since its use would not entail any possible Sixth Amendment violations. Cf. Brown v. Wainwright, 459 F.Supp. 244 (M.D.Fla.1978). However, contempt is not the only remedy available to enforce…
Authorities Cited
- Krueger v. State, 351 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)