Sutton v. Amerson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sutton v. Amerson

922 So. 2d 391, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3207, 2006 WL 536698

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-5408

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 922 So. 2d 391 (Sutton v. Amerson) 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

Sutton v. Amerson, 922 So. 2d 391, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3207, 2006 WL 536698 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of November 28, 2005, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not an appealable order.

A final order holding a party in indirect criminal contempt for failure to comply with an order of the court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, is an appealable order. See Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Baker v. Green, 732 So.2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Here, however, the lower tribunal appears to have neither granted nor denied the motion. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the order on appeal does not hold the appellant in contempt. Although it determined that a factual basis for a finding of contempt exists, the lower tribunal concluded that a finding of contempt and the attendant sanction of incarceration are proper only after the issuance of an order to show cause. Because no such show cause order had issued, the court withheld the imposition of contempt sanctions. Thus, the motion for contempt appears to remain pending before the lower tribunal and the notice of appeal is consequently premature. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief, filed on January 9, 2006, and Amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief, filed on January 12, 2006, are denied as moot.

ERVIN, DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of November 28, 2005, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not an appealable order.

A final order holding a party in indirect criminal contempt for failure to comply with an order of the court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, is an appealable order. See Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Baker v. Green, 732 So.2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Here, however, the lower tribunal appears to have neither granted nor denied the motion. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the order on appeal does not hold the appellant in contempt. Although it determined that a factual basis for a finding of contempt exists, the lower tribunal concluded that a finding of contempt and the attendant sanction of incarceration are proper only after the issuance of an order to show cause. Because no such show cause order had issued, the court withheld the imposition of contempt sanctions. Thus, the motion for contempt appears to remain pending before the lower tribunal and the notice of appeal is consequently premature. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief, filed on January 9, 2006, and Amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief, filed on January 12, 2006, are denied as moot.

ERVIN, DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

922 So. 2d 391, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3207, 2006 WL 536698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-amerson-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack