State of Florida v. Alex Diaz de la Portilla, 177 So. 3d 965

Alex Diaz de la Portilla was ordered in a dissolution-of-marriage case to transfer a dog to his ex-wife; he failed to do so and an order to show cause required him to appear at a contempt hearing.
Diaz de la Portilla did not appear at the hearing; counsel appeared but offered no explanation; the trial court found him in civil contempt for failing to comply with the transfer order and in direct criminal contempt for failing to appear, issuing a warrant and written order.
On appeal the First District reversed the criminal-contempt conviction for insufficient evidence of willfulness but certified the question whether failure to appear should be treated as direct (rule 3.830) or indirect (rule 3.840) criminal contempt.
Both Diaz de la Portilla and the State argued that failure to appear should be treated as indirect criminal contempt under rule 3.840; the supreme court accepted and reviewed the certified question.
The Florida Supreme Court held that failures to appear must be prosecuted as indirect criminal contempt under rule 3.840 (not summary/direct contempt under rule 3.830), receded from Aron II, and remanded for proceedings consistent with that ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to appear pursuant to a court order may be prosecuted as direct (summary) criminal contempt under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830	Diaz de la Portilla and the State: failure to appear should be treated as indirect contempt under rule 3.840	Trial court and some precedent (Aron II, some DCAs): failure to appear can be direct contempt punishable summarily	Held: Failure to appear is not direct (summary) criminal contempt; must be treated as indirect contempt under rule 3.840

Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1977) (distinguishes direct v. indirect contempt; due process requires rule 3.840 safeguards for out-of-court conduct)
Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1925) (limits summary contempt to misconduct witnessed in open court requiring instant vindication)
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (summary contempt inappropriate where facts are established through testimony without opportunity to defend)
Aron v. Huttoe (Aron II), 265 So.2d 699 (Fla. 1972) (prior Florida decision treating failure to appear as direct contempt; court receded from this precedent)
Lee v. Bauer, 72 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1954) (refused summary punishment for failure to appear without chance to explain)
Kelley v. Rice, 800 So.2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (treated failure to appear as not susceptible to summary punishment; questioned Aron reasoning)
United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309 (U.S. 1975) (direct contempt limited to misconduct in presence of court where immediate action is necessary)
In re Terry, 128 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1888) (explains requirement that judicial mind witness all elements for summary contempt)