Rowls v. Boone

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rowls v. Boone

427 So. 2d 220, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18647

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 1983

DocketNo. AR-51

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 427 So. 2d 220 (Rowls v. Boone) 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

Rowls v. Boone, 427 So. 2d 220, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18647 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus of Roy Rowls, filed February 9, 1983, avers that Rowls was imprisoned on that day by order of the circuit court finding him in contempt of court for failure to pay child support previously ordered, and that the circuit court’s order that is the authority for his imprisonment lacks essential findings as required by Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So.2d 650 (Fla.1976), and Hammond v. Sandstrom, 376 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The sheriff’s return to our order to show cause, filed February 11, 1983, by counsel for the party to whom the payments were to have been made, presents us no written evidence of a circuit court order or judgment constituting authority for the imprisonment of Rowls, but explains that the requisite findings were “expressly stated in the order of the trial judge and will be reflected in the written order of the trial judge upon its rendition.” Evidently there is no record of the “order of the trial judge” on authority of which Rowls was taken into custody, and no record of that order will become available until “the written order of the trial judge” is rendered. In such proceedings as these, perhaps for stronger reasons than in other cases, the circuit court speaks through its orders and judgments regularly rendered, and “until that judgment is entered of record there is no competent evidence of such rendition.” See Braren v. Lawyers’ Realty Abstract Co. of Sarasota, 196 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), cert. disch., 206 So.2d 385 (Fla.1968), quoting Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 So. 106 (Fla.1930). See also Faircloth, supra.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED and Rowls will immediately be discharged from custody until he may be taken into custody on authority of a judgment of contempt rendered by the circuit court.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and LARRY G. SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus of Roy Rowls, filed February 9, 1983, avers that Rowls was imprisoned on that day by order of the circuit court finding him in contempt of court for failure to pay child support previously ordered, and that the circuit court’s order that is the authority for his imprisonment lacks essential findings as required by Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So.2d 650 (Fla.1976), and Hammond v. Sandstrom, 376 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The sheriff’s return to our order to show cause, filed February 11, 1983, by counsel for the party to whom the payments were to have been made, presents us no written evidence of a circuit court order or judgment constituting authority for the imprisonment of Rowls, but explains that the requisite findings were “expressly stated in the order of the trial judge and will be reflected in the written order of the trial judge upon its rendition.” Evidently there is no record of the “order of the trial judge” on authority of which Rowls was taken into custody, and no record of that order will become available until “the written order of the trial judge” is rendered. In such proceedings as these, perhaps for stronger reasons than in other cases, the circuit court speaks through its orders and judgments regularly rendered, and “until that judgment is entered of record there is no competent evidence of such rendition.” See Braren v. Lawyers’ Realty Abstract Co. of Sarasota, 196 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), cert. disch., 206 So.2d 385 (Fla.1968), quoting Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 So. 106 (Fla.1930). See also Faircloth, supra.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED and Rowls will immediately be discharged from custody until he may be taken into custody on authority of a judgment of contempt rendered by the circuit court.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and LARRY G. SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 So. 2d 220, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowls-v-boone-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack