T.J.L. v. State
139 So. 3d 503
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Juvenile appellant T.J.L. was found in direct criminal contempt by the trial court after an incident on the record where he failed to “pull up his pants,” made an indistinct sound, and his mother physically brought him to the podium.
- The trial judge described appellant’s conduct on the record as a “temper tantrum,” “acting out,” “slinging his head around,” “giving big sighs,” and “showing out,” and later entered a written contempt judgment labeling the conduct as loud, argumentative, combative, and defiant.
- Appellant apologized when asked to show cause; his counsel pointed out the apology and the judge immediately adjudicated contempt and sentenced appellant to two days in juvenile detention.
- The mother attempted to explain appellant’s head movement (supported by video) but the trial judge cut her off and declined to hear further mitigating explanation.
- The appellate court reviewed the transcript and the unobjected-to video, concluded the record did not support the trial court’s factual findings, and found the trial court failed to afford the juvenile an adequate opportunity to present mitigating or excusing evidence under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether record supports factual findings of contempt | Appellant: record/video do not show tantrum, loud/combative behavior | State: appellant’s defiant attitude disrupted decorum and delayed proceedings | Court: record and video do not support written findings; factual basis insufficient |
| Whether trial court complied with procedural due process under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830 | Appellant: was not given chance to present excusing/mitigating evidence; mother barred from speaking | State: judge’s prompt adjudication justified by courtroom disruption | Court: procedural requirements not met; merely asking if he wished to explain was insufficient; mother should have been heard |
| Whether contempt adjudication was an abuse of discretion | Appellant: judge abused discretion by unsupported findings and procedural failings | State: judge acted within discretion to preserve decorum | Court: abused discretion because findings unsupported and procedures violated; vacated contempt order |
| Remedy for deficient contempt adjudication | Appellant: vacatur of contempt order | State: (implicit) uphold contempt to preserve court authority | Court: vacated the contempt order due to lack of evidentiary support and procedural defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodie v. Campbell, 960 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (definition of criminal contempt as conduct that embarrasses, hinders, or obstructs the court)
- Thomas v. State, 752 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (standard of review for direct criminal contempt is abuse of discretion)
- Smith v. State, 954 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (contempt judgment entitled to presumption of correctness but must be supported by the record)
- Garrett v. State, 876 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (strict compliance with rule 3.830 required to protect due process)
- Berman v. State, 751 So.2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (procedural safeguards of rule 3.830)
- Cook v. State, 636 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (requirement of procedural protections in contempt adjudications)
- O’Neal v. State, 501 So.2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (asking defendant if he wished to explain was insufficient to allow presentation of mitigating evidence)
- Marshall v. State, 764 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversal where judge failed to allow appellant opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence)