Tobkin v. State

868 So. 2d 1264, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3753, 2004 WL 574508
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 24, 2004
DocketNo. 4D03-1090
StatusPublished

This text of 868 So. 2d 1264 (Tobkin 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
Tobkin v. State, 868 So. 2d 1264, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3753, 2004 WL 574508 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

The trial court found appellant guilty of criminal contempt. The trial judge’s order to show cause why appellant should not be held in contempt was based on appellant’s wife’s unsworn motion stating that appellant had failed to comply with a court order requiring him to pay attorney’s fees. We agree with appellant that the proceeding failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(a) which provides:

Order to Show Cause. The judge, on the judge’s own motion or on affidavit of any person having knowledge of the facts, may issue and sign an order directed to the defendant, stating the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and requiring the defendant to appear before the court to show cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt of court.

The order to show cause was neither on the judge’s own motion nor on an affidavit. This constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal. Mix v. State, 827 So.2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Reversed.

WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mix v. State
827 So. 2d 397 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
868 So. 2d 1264, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3753, 2004 WL 574508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tobkin-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.