E.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E.H. v. State

711 So. 2d 1331, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6562, 1998 WL 299355

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1998

DocketNo. 97-00048

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 711 So. 2d 1331 (E.H. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

E.H. v. State, 711 So. 2d 1331, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6562, 1998 WL 299355 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

E.H. challenges an order holding him in indirect criminal contempt of court. We reverse the order because, as the State concedes, the trial court did not follow the procedures set forth in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150(b) to hold E.H. in indirect criminal contempt of court.

It appears from the record that the trial court never issued an order to show cause, which must be served on the defendant to initiate indirect criminal contempt proceedings. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(b)(1); see also Blalock v. Rice, 707 So.2d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (discussing Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, the adult counterpart to rule 8.150). The trial court also erred by finding E.H. in contempt in the juvenile’s absence. By doing so, the trial court could not comply with the requirements that the [1332]*1332defendant be allowed to “testify in his or her own defense” and that prior to the court’s pronouncement of sentence, the defendant be “afforded the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances.” Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(b)(4) and (7). We also note that the written order fails to recite the facts upon which the contempt is based. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(b)(6). Thus, we reverse the trial court’s order finding E.H. in indirect criminal contempt of court.

Reversed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PATTERSON, Judge.

E.H. challenges an order holding him in indirect criminal contempt of court. We reverse the order because, as the State concedes, the trial court did not follow the procedures set forth in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150(b) to hold E.H. in indirect criminal contempt of court.

It appears from the record that the trial court never issued an order to show cause, which must be served on the defendant to initiate indirect criminal contempt proceedings. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(b)(1); see also Blalock v. Rice, 707 So.2d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (discussing Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, the adult counterpart to rule 8.150). The trial court also erred by finding E.H. in contempt in the juvenile’s absence. By doing so, the trial court could not comply with the requirements that the [1332]*1332defendant be allowed to “testify in his or her own defense” and that prior to the court’s pronouncement of sentence, the defendant be “afforded the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances.” Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(b)(4) and (7). We also note that the written order fails to recite the facts upon which the contempt is based. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(b)(6). Thus, we reverse the trial court’s order finding E.H. in indirect criminal contempt of court.

Reversed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 So. 2d 1331, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6562, 1998 WL 299355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eh-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack