Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of Florida - unoffical reports - Opinions

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
CHRISTY JO FLANAGAN,
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Appellant,
v.
CASE NO. 1D01-3401
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed March 18, 2003.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
Judge Nickolas P. Geeker.
Spiro T. Kypreos, Pensacola, for Appellant.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General and Janelle C. Gillaspie, Assistant Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PADOVANO, J.
This is an appeal from a final order adjudicating the appellant, Christy Jo
Flanagan, guilty of indirect criminal contempt and sentencing her to five and one-half
months in the county jail. We conclude that the order to show cause did not meet the

minimum requirements of rule 3.840 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and,
therefore, we reverse.
The contempt charges arose from the appellant's conduct as a defense witness
in the first-degree murder trial of Bruce Sherwood. It appears from the record that the
appellant made a gesture in the courtroom in which she expressed her support for the
defendant, and that she subsequently made an extrajudicial comment in which she
expressed her anger toward a prosecution witness. The appellant contends that the
evidence is insufficient to support a finding that she violated a prior court order and
that the judgment must be reversed, in any event, on the ground that the order to show
cause did not set forth any facts alleging the conduct charged.
It is doubtful that the appellant's conduct could be characterized as a direct
violation of the trial court's order directing the witnesses to refrain from discussing
their testimony, but we need not decide that issue, because the appellant's procedural
argument is dispositive. The rule governing indirect criminal contempt provides that
an order to show cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt must state
"the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged." Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.840(a); State v. Wood, 700 So. 2d 401, 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hill v. State, 643
So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). If the order fails to do so, the requirements of the
rule can still be met if a sworn affidavit containing the essential facts is attached to the
order to show cause. See Wood, 700 So. 2d at 403; Giles v. Renew, 639 So. 2d 701,
2

702 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The order to show cause in the present case did not state
the essential facts constituting the charge of indirect criminal contempt, nor was it
accompanied by a sworn affidavit alleging the essential facts.
Reversed.
BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
3

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE