Rowe v. Wille, s. 80-1580

• Decision Date: 09 June 1982
• Docket Number: Nos. 80-1580,80-1794,s. 80-1580
• Citation: 415 So.2d 79
• Parties: Robert W. ROWE, Appellant, v. Richard P. WILLE, as Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Appellee. Robert W. ROWE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 79

415 So.2d 79

Robert W. ROWE, Appellant, v. Richard P. WILLE, as Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Appellee.

Robert W. ROWE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 80-1580, 80-1794.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

June 9, 1982.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1982.

Claire D. Dryfuss, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, and Frank A. Kreidler, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

Appellant, Robert W. Rowe, appeals an order adjudging him guilty of contempt. We reverse.

Rowe is a district intake supervisor for the Youth Services Office of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Delray Beach, Florida. On August 26, 1980, he was served with an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for his alleged failure to enforce the conditions of probation of two youths previously placed in a community control program supervised by the Youth Services Office. Specifically, the order required Rowe to explain why the youths had failed to make court-ordered restitution before their nineteenth birthdays at which time juvenile court jurisdiction over the youths automatically terminated. After a hearing Rowe was adjudicated guilty, ordered to pay a fine of twice the amount the youths had failed to pay in restitution, and sentenced to serve 24 hours in jail. On appeal Rowe contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction to hold him in contempt and that, assuming jurisdiction, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

Chapter 39.13, Florida Statutes (1977), states:

The court may punish for contempt any person interfering with the administration of or violating any provision of this chapter [the Florida Juvenile Justice Act] or order of the court relative thereto.

Chapter 959.021, Florida Statutes (1977), mandates that HRS "shall be responsible for the implementation of law and policy relating to youth services ...." Chapter 39.11(1)(a)(1) provides that "Community control programs for children shall be supervised by the department [HRS] or by any other person or agency specifically authorized by the court." Clearly, under this statutory scheme and the terms of the court's orders, it was Rowe's duty to implement the orders placing the two youths on probation and to see that the conditions, including restitution, were carried out. That being the case, we believe the court possessed the power to cite him for contempt for wilful failure to carry out the court's orders.

Since the trial court indicated that the alleged contemptuous conduct occurred outside its presence, the charge against appellant may be properly characterized as indirect criminal contempt. Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla.1977). In such instances there must be proof of intent to disobey the court and, as in all criminal cases, the defendant will be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 218 (Fla.1953); Department of Rehabilitation Services v. State, 338 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). There must be evidence that the defendant intended to violate the court's command, or that he was guilty of such gross dereliction that the intent will be presumed. See Brugh v. Savings and Profit Sharing Fund, 205 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). We cannot find such proof in this record.

Rowe acknowledged responsibility for supervising the program and admitted that restitution was not...