Kessler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kessler v. State

820 So. 2d 459, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10329, 2002 WL 1560279

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 2002

DocketNo. 3D02-1690

StatusPublished

This text of 820 So. 2d 459 (Kessler 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

Kessler v. State, 820 So. 2d 459, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10329, 2002 WL 1560279 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Avira D. Kessler (“Defendant”), appeals a trial court order finding her in direct criminal contempt fourteen days after the alleged contempt occurred. We reverse.

As the State correctly concedes, the trial court failed to provide the defendant with notice and an opportunity to prepare a defense before the hearing at which the trial court found her guilty of direct criminal contempt. A trial court must give the alleged contemnor notice and an opportunity to prepare a defense when the act underlying the charge of direct criminal contempt occurs days before the hearing thereon. See Tejada v. State, 729 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Fox v. State, 490 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Since the trial court failed to do so, the order below must be reversed. Further contempt proceedings, if any, should be conducted as an indirect contempt.

Reversed.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Avira D. Kessler (“Defendant”), appeals a trial court order finding her in direct criminal contempt fourteen days after the alleged contempt occurred. We reverse.

As the State correctly concedes, the trial court failed to provide the defendant with notice and an opportunity to prepare a defense before the hearing at which the trial court found her guilty of direct criminal contempt. A trial court must give the alleged contemnor notice and an opportunity to prepare a defense when the act underlying the charge of direct criminal contempt occurs days before the hearing thereon. See Tejada v. State, 729 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Fox v. State, 490 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Since the trial court failed to do so, the order below must be reversed. Further contempt proceedings, if any, should be conducted as an indirect contempt.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

820 So. 2d 459, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10329, 2002 WL 1560279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kessler-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack