KM v. State, 962 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
KM v. State, 962 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: A.P. v. State (fladistctapp, 2017-04-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Second, “a prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure] rule 8.150 and section 985.037.” K.M. v. State, 962 So.2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So.2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Second, “a prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure] rule 8.150 and section 985.037.” K.M. v. State, 962 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) F.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
We have jurisdiction and choose to consider the merits of the petition. “[A] prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure] 8.150 and section 985.037.” KM. v. State, 962 So.2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So.2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.H. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
We have jurisdiction and choose to consider the merits of the petition. “[A] prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure] 8.150 and section 985.037.” KM. v. State, 962 So.2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So.2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.H. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
We have jurisdiction and choose to consider the merits of the petition. “[A] prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure] 8.150 and section 985.037.” K.M. v. State, 962 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) F.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
We have jurisdiction and choose to consider the merits of the petition. “[A] prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in [Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure] 8.150 and section 985.037.” K.M. v. State, 962 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also G.C. v. State, 901 So. 2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alan v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also K.M. v. State, 962 So.2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (disposition listing juvenile’s probation requirements was not a “valid court ordér” that could support finding juvenile in indirect criminal contempt after juvenile’s arrest for violating probation by breaching curfew); M.W. v. Lofthiem, 855 So.2d 683, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“Neither does M.W.’s admission to prior use of .marijuana constitute indirect crimi nal contempt unless the use violated a valid court order that was in effect at the time he used the drug.”); Shields v. Shields, 636 So.2d 169, 170 (Fla. 2d DCA…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
K.M., a child, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida and Daryl Wolfe, Superintendent of the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center, Respondents.
4D07-2238.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jul 25, 2007.
962 So. 2d 969
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

[*970] Howard Finkelstein, Public Defender, and Diane M. Cuddihy, Assistant Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine M. Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

K.M. petitions for habeas relief from indirect criminal contempt of a valid court order. We grant the petition.

K.M. appeared before the trial court for a first appearance on a violation of probation. During the hearing, the court stated that it would take K.M. into custody for indirect criminal contempt of a valid court order, i.e., breaching the curfew set in his probation disposition. The court did not follow the procedures for an indirect criminal contempt hearing set forth in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150 or section 985.037, Florida Statutes. Rather, the court asked K.M.'s mother if she wanted K.M. taught a lesson, and K.M. maintained his silence on advice of counsel. The trial court reversibly erred in two respects.

First, it is clear from the hearing transcripts that a valid court order did not exist for the charge on which K.M. was held, i.e., breach of curfew, at the time K.M. was found to be in indirect contempt of court. The trial court recognized that there was no valid court order regarding the violation that was allegedly breached. The only document existing in the record was a disposition listing probation requirements. As such, K.M. could not be held in indirect criminal contempt. See M.W. v. Lofthiem, 855 So.2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Second, a prosecution for indirect criminal contempt is to follow the procedural due process set forth in rule 8.150 and section 985.037. The trial court did[*971] not initiate the proceeding by issuing an order to show cause, allowing reasonable time to prepare a defense, or setting a future hearing pursuant to rule 8.150(b). Also, the court explained neither the nature and consequences of the proceeding, nor the rights afforded K.M. pursuant to section 985.037(b). The court failed to provide K.M. with the due process set forth by rule and statute and so he is entitled to habeas relief and the findings of contempt are reversed. See G.C. v. State, 901 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

SHAHOOD, C.J., GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.