Davila v. State
100 So. 3d 262
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Davila was charged with direct criminal contempt and sentenced to six months in jail on February 2, 2011.
- On December 20, 2010, the court reset Davila’s case; the clerk set a new date, the court moved to another case, and Davila muttered something under his breath.
- A detention deputy relayed to the court that Davila said, “F
- this court,” leading to immediate detention and a finding of contempt.
- Davila explained he was an inmate frustrated by delay in seeing his public defender and did not intend to disrupt proceedings.
- The court found the conduct disrespectful and that it obstructed justice, imposing six months’ jail and adding $758 in costs.
- The record shows the comment was not heard by the judge, did not interrupt proceedings, and the court proceeded with other cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the utterance constitutes direct criminal contempt | Davila’s profanity in court disrupted proceedings and was heard by the court. | The comment was not heard by the judge and did not hinder administration of justice. | No; the record shows no willful obstruction and the comment was not heard by the court. |
| Whether there was willful or deliberate intent to disrupt | The statement reflects contempt for the court’s authority. | Davila spoke out of frustration and did not intend to hinder the court. | No; there is no evidence of willful disruption; utterance alone is insufficient. |
| Whether the punishment was appropriate for direct contempt | The court’s in-court response warranted summary punishment to protect the process. | Law requires willful disruption and hearing by the court; the punishment was excessive. | Remanded; conviction, sentence, and costs reversed. |
| Whether the additional costs were proper | Costs were ancillary to the contempt sanction. | Costs tied to a reversed contempt judgment are improper. | Reversed; costs in addition to the contempt sentence were improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodie v. Campbell, 960 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (direct contempt must be heard by the court to sustain conviction)
- Emanuel v. State, 601 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (judicial power to punish contempt must be cautiously used)
- Bryant v. State, 851 So.2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (summary punishment for contempt requires near-observed conduct)
- Payne v. State, 486 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (reversing when judge heard a different alleged expletive than claimed)
- Barr v. State, 334 So.2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (reversing contempt conviction where statements were not heard by court)
- Martinez v. State, 339 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (jury trial right when six months or more contemplated for contempt)
- Kelley v. Rice, 800 So.2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (elements of misdemeanor contempt in open court)
- Schenck v. State, 645 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (provocation for contempt must be real and necessary)
- Sewell v. State, 443 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (criminal contempt requires willful act hindering court functions)
- Woods v. State, 987 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (illustrates obstructive conduct in contempt cases)