Hunter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hunter v. State

141 So. 3d 700, 2014 WL 2958325, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10140

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 2014

Docket2D13-3001

StatusPublished

This text of 141 So. 3d 700 (Hunter 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

Hunter v. State, 141 So. 3d 700, 2014 WL 2958325, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10140 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Phillip Hunter appeals an order adjudicating him guilty of direct criminal contempt, imposing a fíne, and committing him to jail for five days. The direct contempt charge arose from a civil matter in which Mr. Hunter became obstructive and profane during the proceedings. The record suggests that the jail sentence may have been fully served already. But even if it has been served, the case is not moot, and procedural due process concerns compel us to reverse the contempt order.

Mr. Hunter maintains that the trial court did not satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.880 in several respects. He claims that it failed to apprise him of the accusation against him, failed to offer him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty, failed to give him an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence, and failed to pronounce his sentence in open court. Although we do not disturb the trial court’s findings with respect to Mr. Hunter’s contemptuous conduct, we must reverse the contempt order because the record does not demonstrate that the trial court satisfied these procedural requirements.

On remand, the trial court is not required by our mandate to conduct further proceedings. If the trial court determines that it is appropriate to reinstate the judgment of contempt, it must conduct a hearing, upon proper notice to Mr. Hunter, in order to give him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty and to afford him an opportunity to present mitigating or excusing evidence. Following any hearing, if the court determines the judgment of contempt should be reinstated, it should give due regard to principles of double jeopardy when imposing any sanction.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

ALTENBERND, VILLANTI, and CRENSHAW, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Phillip Hunter appeals an order adjudicating him guilty of direct criminal contempt, imposing a fíne, and committing him to jail for five days. The direct contempt charge arose from a civil matter in which Mr. Hunter became obstructive and profane during the proceedings. The record suggests that the jail sentence may have been fully served already. But even if it has been served, the case is not moot, and procedural due process concerns compel us to reverse the contempt order.

Mr. Hunter maintains that the trial court did not satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.880 in several respects. He claims that it failed to apprise him of the accusation against him, failed to offer him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty, failed to give him an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence, and failed to pronounce his sentence in open court. Although we do not disturb the trial court’s findings with respect to Mr. Hunter’s contemptuous conduct, we must reverse the contempt order because the record does not demonstrate that the trial court satisfied these procedural requirements.

On remand, the trial court is not required by our mandate to conduct further proceedings. If the trial court determines that it is appropriate to reinstate the judgment of contempt, it must conduct a hearing, upon proper notice to Mr. Hunter, in order to give him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty and to afford him an opportunity to present mitigating or excusing evidence. Following any hearing, if the court determines the judgment of contempt should be reinstated, it should give due regard to principles of double jeopardy when imposing any sanction.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

ALTENBERND, VILLANTI, and CRENSHAW, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 So. 3d 700, 2014 WL 2958325, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.