JUANITA HARDWICK, 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.
Juanita Hardwick appeals a three-year penitentiary sentence imposed after she was already sentenced to one year in county jail for probation violation. The court reverses, holding that a new sentence for contempt cannot reconsider or replace an already-imposed sentence, even when the contempt occurs during the probation hearing.
A defendant may be sentenced for contempt committed in the presence of the court, but such sentence must comply with procedural rules and cannot result in reconsideration of an already-imposed sentence. The three-year penitentiary sentence is reversed, and the original one-year county jail sentence is reinstated, though the court may take separate appropriate action regarding the contempt.
[1] A sentence imposed after a defendant has already begun serving a prior sentence for the same offense is void as a violation of double jeopardy.
[2] A court may sentence a defendant for contempt committed in its presence, but this does not permit reconsideration of a previously imposed sentence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 contempt does not allow a reconsideration of the sentence already imposed.”
Establishes the core holding that contempt cannot be used to revisit or modify an already-imposed sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHardwick was a probationer who admitted to a probation violation and was sentenced orally to one year in county jail with provisions for her drug prob…
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 Contempt Of Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
The probationer, Juanita Hardwick, appeals a sentence imposed upon the revocation of her probation on the ground that because it was imposed after she had already been sentenced, it was, therefore, void because it placed her in double jeopardy for the violation. See Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1973); Katz v. State, 335 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); and Beckom v. State, 227 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). We agree and, accordingly, reverse the sentence and remand the cause for the re-establishment-of the first sentence.
At the probation violation hearing, the probationer admitted one of the alleged violations and the court orally sentenced her to serve one year in the county jail with provisions made for her drug problem and her pregnancy. A handwritten notation of the sentence was entered by the clerk and the defendant was turned over to officers of the Dade County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation to begin serving her sentence. Subsequent thereto, the defendant was guilty of misconduct in the courtroom which would constitute contempt.1 Thereupon, the trial court vacated the first sentence and entered a new sentence for three years in the state penitentiary.
A defendant may be sentenced for a contempt committed in the presence of the court, but such a sentence must be entered pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830; and Manning v. State, 234 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).. The contempt does not allow a reconsideration of the sentence already imposed. See the Troupe, Katz and Beckom cases cited above. Accordingly, the defendant’s second sentence to three years in the state penitentiary is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for the execution of the sentence of one year in the county jail as originally imposed. This decision does not bar such action as the court may find proper for the contempt committed.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. “THE COURT: Excuse me. Did I see what I thought I did? Did she hit you?
“THE PROBATION OFFICER: Yes.
“THE COURT: Do you have any reason that you can give to me why you shouldn’t be held in contempt of this Court?
“There being no response, you are adjudicated in contempt of this Court. And in addition to the one year sentence heretofore imposed, that sentence is vacated. Sentence the defendant to three years in the state penitentiary. All right.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Payne, 404 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1981)…orida Constitutions, and cites several cases in support thereof. See Ex Parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 85 U.S. 163, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874); United States v. Turner, 518 F. 2d 14 (7th Cir. 1975); Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1973); Hardwick v. State, 357 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The above cases pertain to the resentenc-ing of parties already sentenced once before. All articulate the general rule that once a defendant has begun serving his sentence, d…
-
Williamson v. State, 388 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…for his malefactions is to vitiate the plea bargain and proceed to trial on the original charge. Since, however, he has already been sentenced, any resulting enhancement of the punishment would not be constitutionally permissible. Hardwick v. State, 357 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Katz v. State, 335 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). . Morgan v. State, supra, in which the probationer failed to comply with an agreement to testify which was a part of the plea arrangement, but not the probation order, is disting…
-
DEL RIO v. State, 549 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…s constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy and must be vacated. Fasenmyer v. State, 457 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1035, 105 S.Ct. 1407, 84 L.Ed.2d 796 (1985); Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1973); Hardwick v. State, 357 So. 2d 265 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). The State argues that this issue is moot, claiming that the defendant has not been injured by having been sentenced to sixty days with sixty days credit for time served, as opposed to having been sentenced to thirty days'with thi…
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
- Flazell Troupe v. The Honorable Ellen Morphonios Rowe & the Honorable Paul Baker, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1973)
- Elliot Katz v. State, 335 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Beckom v. State, 227 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Manning v. State, 234 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)