Escoto v. State

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 12, 2015.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D14-952
Lower Tribunal No. 05-25794
________________
Michel Escoto,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami Dade County, Marisa Tinkler-
Mendez, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public
Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Martinez Biswas, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and ROTHENBERG and SALTER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Michel Escoto appeals a judgment and sentence of direct criminal contempt
of court. The conduct upon which the adjudication was based occurred in the
courtroom during Escoto’s trial on a charge of first-degree murder for the death of
his wife. We reverse and remand the order for the entry of specific findings
describing the comments and conduct which precipitated the judgment of
contempt.
After a witness for the State testified regarding a one million dollar life
insurance policy on the life of his deceased wife and evidence that the couple was
about to be evicted from their apartment around the time of her death, Escoto
asked the court to “give [him] a second” because he was going to say something he
“shouldn’t.” Escoto began to tell the witness, “If you say that again,” and after an
objection by the State he suggested that it would take all of “those guys wearing
white” and more to control him.
The court stopped the proceedings and had the jury removed. The court
found that Escoto had “crossed the line,” allowed him to address the court in
mitigation, and then ruled, “I am going to find you in direct criminal contempt
because your comment was contentious and violative of the Court order in the
Court’s presence as well as disruptive of the proceedings.” The court sentenced
Escoto to 30 days in the county jail for contempt. The written order specified that
Escoto was guilty of direct criminal contempt “due to inappropriate courtroom
2
conduct and inappropriate comments to a witness, despite repeated admonishments
by the Court, thereby violating the Court’s previous orders.” This appeal followed.
Analysis
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, “Direct Criminal Contempt,”
specifies that a “judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital of those facts
on which the adjudication of guilt is based.” “Scrupulous compliance with rule
3.830 is required . . . .” Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895, 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
(quoting Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048, 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)). “Purely
conclusory statements will not meet the requirement of a recitation of facts. For
example, citing the contemnor’s ‘unjudicious, unethical and intemperate conduct
before the court’ is insufficient.” McRoy v. State, 31 So. 3d 273, 274 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2010) (quoting Ray v. State, 352 So. 2d 110, 111-12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)).
While the transcript in this case demonstrates some of the behavior for
which the defendant was held in contempt, the written judgment of criminal
contempt must include specific facts. See Johnson v. State, 584 So. 2d 95, 96-97
(Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see also Montoya v. State, 695 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA
1997). We reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a judgment including a
recitation of the specific facts upon which the adjudication of contempt was based.
See, e.g., McGlamory v. State, 723 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Montoya, 695
So. 2d 873.
3