You are on page 1of 4
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO. 2019MM002346AXXX DIVISION B STATE OF FLORIDA vs. ROBERT KRAFT, Defendant. / ORDER DENYING STATE’S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENSE COUNSEL BURCK AND SPIRO IN DIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND TO HOLD DEFENSE COUNSEL SPIRO IN INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT State’s Motion (filing # 89114454, filed May 7, 2019) came before the Court in chambers. Upon review of the Motion, and evidence in support thereof, the Motion is denied. Appellate Status A preliminary issue this Court needs to consider is whether the current appellate posture of the case prevents this Court from addressing the Motion. The Court finds it can address the Motion notwithstanding the current status of appellate proceedings. ‘The Court entered an Amended Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Suppress on May 14, 2019. This is a non-final order. The State filed a Notice of Appeal of that Order on May 17, 2019, appealing that Order to the Circuit Court, ‘This Court entered an Order Granting State’s Motion for Stay and Extension of Speedy Trial Pending Final Disposition of Appellate Proceedings on May 21, 2019. This Court entered an Order Certifying Questions of Great Public Importance to the Fourth District Court of Appeal on May 23, 2019. The Circuit Court, in its appellate capacity, entered an Order Directing Clerk To Transfer Appeal to The Fourth District Court Of Appeal on May 24, 2019. That Order directed the State to appeal this Court’s order of May 14, 2019 directly to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. It is clear that in the absence of a stay, during pendency of an appeal, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters, including trial or final hearing, but may not render a final judgment disposing of the cause without leave of court.’ ‘The State’s Motion does not address or affect the issues raised by the certified questions; rather, the State’s Motion is collateral to those issues, Therefore, Fla R. App. P, 9.130(1) does not prohibit this Court from ruling on State’s Motion in the absence of a stay because ruling on the State’s Motion does not interfere with the appellate court’s review of the certified questions.? Employing the same analysis, the Court finds that the stay entered on May 21, 2019 does not prevent this Court from addressing the State’s Motion, First, the order entering stay addressed speedy trial and simply recognized that case law? grants the State the right to appeal the subject matter of that interlocutory order without being prejudiced by a defendant’s speedy trial rights. Second, case law also indicates that, notwithstanding an appeal and a stay, a trial court does retain jurisdiction to address matters collateral to the subject matter of the order being appealed. Because a stay is ordinarily used to suspend the execution of a decree already rendered and not to suspend other proceedings in the cause further adjudicating the rights of the parties when an appeal is taken from the interlocutory order, the appeal taken operates only as a stay of the interlocutory order appealed.’ Such a 2 stay does not interfere with the power of the court of original jurisdiction to make such further orders or decrees as do not tend toward an execution or enforcement of the order or decree appealed. Contempt ‘The Court has reviewed the State’s Motion and evidence supporting the State’s allegations. The Court has also reviewed a significant number of cases relative to the issues of criminal contempt, direct and indirect. ‘The Court concludes that the issues raised in the State’s Motion and the factual patterns cited by the State to support its Motion, if true, are more appropriately addressed by any party feeling itself to be aggrieved by instituting proceedings in the respective bar associations governing the practice of law of which said defense counsel are members. this Z Y day of June 2019. Accordingly, the State’s Motion is DENIED. ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Florida, A ¥ M4 LEONARD HANSER County Court Judge + Fla, R. App. P. 9.130(f). 2 Casavan v. Land O' Lakes Realty, Inc. of Leesburg, 526 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. Sth DCA 1988). ® Buhler v. State, 247 So, 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), review denied, SC18-820, 2018 WL 3090023 (Fla. June 22, 2018) * Finst Dev., Inc. v. Bemaor, 449 So, 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). 53 Fla, Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 158 (2019).