Palmer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Palmer v. State

159 So. 3d 1024, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 4292, 2015 WL 1334328

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-291

StatusPublished

This text of 159 So. 3d 1024 (Palmer 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

Palmer v. State, 159 So. 3d 1024, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 4292, 2015 WL 1334328 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s summary Order of Direct Criminal Contempt entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.880. As the state correctly concedes, appellant was denied due process of law because the trial court’s order is based on instances of alleged misconduct that occurred outside the court’s presence over the course of six months, and not solely in open court “where immediate punishment is essential to prevent ‘demoralization of the court’s authority ... before the public.’ ” In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 275-76, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948) (holding that if some of the essential elements of the offense are not personally observed by the trial court, thereby requiring statements made by others attesting to the offense, due process requires that the accused be accorded notice and a fair hearing). Consequently, the cause is remanded for further proceedings affording appellant the procedural safeguards as appear in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s summary Order of Direct Criminal Contempt entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.880. As the state correctly concedes, appellant was denied due process of law because the trial court’s order is based on instances of alleged misconduct that occurred outside the court’s presence over the course of six months, and not solely in open court “where immediate punishment is essential to prevent ‘demoralization of the court’s authority ... before the public.’ ” In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 275-76, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948) (holding that if some of the essential elements of the offense are not personally observed by the trial court, thereby requiring statements made by others attesting to the offense, due process requires that the accused be accorded notice and a fair hearing). Consequently, the cause is remanded for further proceedings affording appellant the procedural safeguards as appear in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 3d 1024, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 4292, 2015 WL 1334328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack