Phelps v. State, 236 So. 3d 1162

Moses I. Phelps was found in direct criminal contempt, sentenced to 10 days in jail and fined $250.
The contempt was adjudicated summarily by the trial judge based on conduct the judge observed in court.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 requires the judge to inform the defendant of the accusation, allow the defendant to show cause why they should not be adjudged guilty, permit presentation of excusing or mitigating evidence, and recite the factual basis in the judgment.
The trial court did not inform Phelps of the accusation in the required manner, did not give him an opportunity to show cause, and did not allow presentation of mitigating or excusing evidence.
Phelps raised the Rule 3.830 defects in his reply brief rather than his initial brief; the court nevertheless addressed the error because it was fundamental and apparent on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court complied with Rule 3.830 when adjudicating direct criminal contempt summarily	Phelps argued the court failed to inform him of the accusation and denied opportunity to show cause or present mitigating evidence	State asserted the trial court had complied with Rule 3.830	Court held the trial court violated Rule 3.830 by not giving Phelps the required notice and opportunity to be heard; reversal required
Whether the Rule 3.830 violations must be considered despite being raised first in a reply brief	Phelps raised the issue in reply; State had argued compliance in its answer brief	State argued appellate court should not consider new issues raised in reply	Court considered the issue because the State had addressed compliance in its answer and the error was fundamental, warranting correction
Whether summary contempt procedure can proceed without full criminal due process protections	N/A (contextual issue)	State relied on summary-contempt authority allowing immediate sanctions for in-court misconduct	Court reaffirmed summary contempt is a narrow exception but Rule 3.830’s procedural safeguards are essential and must be scrupulously followed
Whether failure to follow Rule 3.830 constitutes reversible/fundamental error	Phelps contended failure required reversal	State implicitly argued compliance or waived complaint	Court held failure to follow Rule 3.830 is fundamental error and reversible; reversed contempt order

T.J.L. v. State, 139 So.3d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (standard of review and contempt definition)
Woodie v. Campbell, 960 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (definition of criminal contempt)
Plank v. State, 190 So.3d 594 (Fla. 2016) (authority for immediate action for in-court misconduct; protect due process when jail at issue)
Rhoads v. State, 817 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (Rule 3.830 defines due process in direct contempt and must be scrupulously followed)
Searcy v. State, 971 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (failure to follow direct contempt procedures is fundamental error)
Garrett v. State, 876 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (failure to comply with Rule 3.830 requires reversal)
Martin v. State, 711 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (procedural requirements for direct contempt are mandatory)
Bouie v. State, 784 So.2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (procedural protections in contempt proceedings)
Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (procedural citation regarding briefing practice)

Decision: Reversed the order and sentence for direct criminal contempt due to the trial court’s failure to comply with Rule 3.830.