State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Berg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Berg

45 So. 3d 573, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15813, 2010 WL 4103314

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 20, 2010

Docket4D09-3711

StatusPublished

This text of 45 So. 3d 573 (State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Berg) 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

State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Berg, 45 So. 3d 573, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15813, 2010 WL 4103314 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

STEVENSON, J.

The Florida Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) challenges an order dismissing an action for lack of prosecution between DMV and petitioner Jason Berg and requiring DMV’s counsel to make a $250 donation to the Palm Beach County law library as a sanction for her failure to appear at a “status conference for lack of prosecution.” We affirm the dismissal, but reverse the order to the extent that it imposes a sanction upon counsel.

Here, after none of the parties or counsel attended a scheduled status conference, the trial court immediately entered an order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution and imposed a sanction on DMV’s counsel. Such sanction is plainly a criminal contempt sanction — a compelled “donation” to the county law library in no way benefits the adverse party and “ ‘[a]ny flat, unconditional fine is considered a criminal [contempt] sanction.’ ” In re Steffens, 988 So.2d 142, 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (quoting Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So.2d 359, 365 (Fla.2000)). Counsel’s failure to appear for a scheduled hearing has been characterized as an “indirect criminal contempt,” triggering the application of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. Id.

Rule 3.840 requires the court to issue an order to the would-be contemnor stating the charge and requiring the party to appear before the court and show cause as to why he or she should not be held in contempt. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.840(a). *575 The rule requires a hearing, that the defendant is afforded an opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances, and that sentence be pronounced in open court. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.840(d), (g). None of those safeguards were employed in the instant case and, when contempt sanctions are at issue, “strict compliance” with the rules is required. See Fiore v. Athineos, 9 So.3d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Accordingly, we reverse the order to the extent that it imposes a sanction upon counsel. Our reversal is without prejudice for further proceedings in regard to a sanction if the trial court so chooses.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

GROSS, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.

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

STEVENSON, J.

The Florida Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) challenges an order dismissing an action for lack of prosecution between DMV and petitioner Jason Berg and requiring DMV’s counsel to make a $250 donation to the Palm Beach County law library as a sanction for her failure to appear at a “status conference for lack of prosecution.” We affirm the dismissal, but reverse the order to the extent that it imposes a sanction upon counsel.

Here, after none of the parties or counsel attended a scheduled status conference, the trial court immediately entered an order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution and imposed a sanction on DMV’s counsel. Such sanction is plainly a criminal contempt sanction — a compelled “donation” to the county law library in no way benefits the adverse party and “ ‘[a]ny flat, unconditional fine is considered a criminal [contempt] sanction.’ ” In re Steffens, 988 So.2d 142, 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (quoting Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So.2d 359, 365 (Fla.2000)). Counsel’s failure to appear for a scheduled hearing has been characterized as an “indirect criminal contempt,” triggering the application of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. Id.

Rule 3.840 requires the court to issue an order to the would-be contemnor stating the charge and requiring the party to appear before the court and show cause as to why he or she should not be held in contempt. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.840(a). *575 The rule requires a hearing, that the defendant is afforded an opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances, and that sentence be pronounced in open court. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.840(d), (g). None of those safeguards were employed in the instant case and, when contempt sanctions are at issue, “strict compliance” with the rules is required. See Fiore v. Athineos, 9 So.3d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Accordingly, we reverse the order to the extent that it imposes a sanction upon counsel. Our reversal is without prejudice for further proceedings in regard to a sanction if the trial court so chooses.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

GROSS, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 So. 3d 573, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15813, 2010 WL 4103314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-highway-safety-motor-vehicles-v-berg-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack