White v. Junior
219 So. 3d 230
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Travis White sought custody of his son in a dependency proceeding; the trial court ordered White to submit to a drug test during a hearing on April 25, 2017, and to return to court.
- White left the courtroom, did not complete the ordered drug test, and did not return; the court later discovered he had not submitted to testing.
- The trial court issued an order to show cause directing White to appear on April 27, 2017, to explain why he should not be held in contempt for failing to test and failing to return.
- At the April 27 hearing the court appointed counsel for White only minutes before proceeding; defense counsel requested more time to investigate and prepare but the court denied the request and conducted a final hearing.
- The trial court adjudged White guilty of direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to seven days in jail; White filed a habeas petition and the appellate court issued a temporary stay and released him pending review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt should have been prosecuted as direct or indirect criminal contempt | White: Proceedings were indirect because the court lacked personal, contemporaneous observation of all contempt elements and counsel needed time to prepare | State: Trial court’s summary handling was proper or, alternatively, any error was harmless because protections were afforded | Court: Proceedings were improperly treated as direct contempt; vacated direct-contempt judgment and sentence and remanded for indirect-contempt proceedings |
| Whether White received reasonable time to prepare after the show-cause order | White: Appointment of counsel minutes before hearing and two-day gap from order to hearing denied reasonable preparation | State: Argues protections were effectively provided and error was harmless | Court: Rejected State’s harmless-error claim; found White was not given reasonable time and counsel lacked opportunity to investigate |
Key Cases Cited
- Plank v. State, 190 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 2016) (reaffirming Oliver principle that direct contempt requires judge’s personal observation of all contemptuous acts)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (due process requires judge’s personal observation for summary conviction of contempt)
- State v. Diaz de la Portilla, 177 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 2015) (direct contempt limited to acts in court that disrupt proceedings and demand immediate action)
- Gratz v. State, 84 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (indirect contempt requires procedural safeguards, including reasonable time to prepare)
- Goral v. State, 553 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (same)
- Korn v. Korn, 180 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (same)
- Russ v. State, 622 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (same)