Sewell v. State, AT-64
| Decision Date | 12 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AT-64,AT-64 |
| Citation | 443 So.2d 164 |
| Parties | James SEWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert G. Kerrigan of Kerrigan, Estess & Rankin, Pensacola, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Wallace Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Sewell appeals an order of the trial court finding him guilty of direct criminal contempt for failure to appear at the time set by the court for the commencement of a trial. He contends there is no evidence that he intended to interfere with the functioning of the court. We agree and reverse.
Sewell is an assistant public defender and was before Judge Gordon on 18 April 1983 representing a defendant during jury selection. After selection, the judge announced that trial would begin at 8:30 a.m. on 20 April 1983.
At 8:30 a.m. on 20 April, neither Sewell nor the prosecutor was in the courtroom. Both were summoned to the courtroom and the trial began. After the judge declared a mistrial, he asked both the prosecutor (who was not present on 18 April when the court announced the 8:30 a.m. starting time) and Sewell to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for showing up late.
The prosecutor stated that he was not informed by the prosecutor who was present at the jury selection that trial would start at 8:30. He said he assumed the trial would begin at 9:00 a.m. because all other cases he had handled began at 9:00 a.m. Sewell said he did not hear the court announce the 8:30 a.m. starting time and also assumed that trial would start at 9:00 a.m. He apologized for being late.
The judge did not hold the prosecutor in contempt because the court was not sure whether he knew of the starting time. The judge did hold Sewell in contempt and assessed a $25.00 fine. The next day the judge suspended the $25.00 fine.
Sewell appealed on 20 May 1983 and on 24 May 1983 the judge filed a Judgment of Contempt and Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc finding Sewell guilty of direct criminal contempt. This judgment found that it was not certain whether Sewell was in the courtroom when the announcement of the starting time was made, however, if he was not in the courtroom he left without the court's permission. The judgment also contained a finding that the court had warned Sewell several times before 20 April about being late for court.
Sewell filed an affidavit on 8 June 1983 asserting the judge had never warned him about being late before 20 April....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forbes v. State, 4D05-1554.
...the court or obstruct the administration of justice. See Stevens v. State, 547 So.2d 279, 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Sewell v. State, 443 So.2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). There must be proof that the accused intended to hinder or obstruct the administration of justice. Hunnefeld v. Futch, ......
-
Michaels v. Loftus
...See Davila v. State, 100 So.3d 262, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Thompson v. State, 618 So.2d 781, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Sewell v. State, 443 So.2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The main purpose of the law of contempt is to “appropriately punish for an assault or an aspersion upon the authori......
-
Michaels v. Loftus
...See Davila v. State, 100 So. 3d 262, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Thompson v. State, 618 So. 2d 781, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Sewell v. State, 443 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The main purpose of the law of contempt is to "appropriately punish for an assault or an aspersion upon the auth......
-
Riggs v. State
...conclusion: Riggs apologized; explained he had no other clean shirt to wear; and, he even offered to cover it. See Sewell v. State, 443 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In my view, the mere fact Riggs wore the offensive T-shirt into traffic court when requesting a trial date does not constitu......