L.V. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

L.V. v. State

147 So. 3d 680, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16725, 2014 WL 5088878

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 2014

DocketNo. 3D14-2444

StatusPublished

This text of 147 So. 3d 680 (L.V. 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

L.V. v. State, 147 So. 3d 680, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16725, 2014 WL 5088878 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In light of the State’s concession, we grant L.V.’s emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus, and order that L.V. be released from secure detention and returned to the custody of the Department of Children and Families. See Michaels v. Loftus, 139 So.3d 324, 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“The law requires a charge of direct criminal contempt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

This relief is granted without prejudice to further proceedings permitting the trial court to make additional findings that would support its conclusion. See, e.g., Woods v. State, 987 So.2d 669, 677 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing and remanding an order of criminal contempt because “[t]he trial court had to establish that Mr. Woods’ statement, coupled with his actions, were intended to constitute an imminent threat to the administration of justice.”).

Petition granted without prejudice.

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

PER CURIAM.

In light of the State’s concession, we grant L.V.’s emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus, and order that L.V. be released from secure detention and returned to the custody of the Department of Children and Families. See Michaels v. Loftus, 139 So.3d 324, 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“The law requires a charge of direct criminal contempt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

This relief is granted without prejudice to further proceedings permitting the trial court to make additional findings that would support its conclusion. See, e.g., Woods v. State, 987 So.2d 669, 677 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing and remanding an order of criminal contempt because “[t]he trial court had to establish that Mr. Woods’ statement, coupled with his actions, were intended to constitute an imminent threat to the administration of justice.”).

Petition granted without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 3d 680, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16725, 2014 WL 5088878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lv-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack