Case Name: Johnny MILLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-04-24
Citations: 672 So. 2d 95
Docket Number: No. 96-699
Parties: Johnny MILLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and GREEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 672
Pages: 95–97

Head Matter:
Johnny MILLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-699.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 24, 1996.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Louis Campbell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth and Angelica D. Zayas, Assistant Attorney General, for appel-lee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and GREEN, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
During the course of his appearance on an unrelated charge of indirect contempt, the defendant-appellant passed out in the courtroom and could not readily be revived because he had "had a little coke" that morning. We conclude that the trial court properly found that this conduct obstructed the administration of justice in the case so as to justify a finding of direct criminal contempt. See Linowitz v. State, 498 So.2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Thomson v. State, 398 So.2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Compare Commonwealth ex rel. Falwell v. Di Giacinto, 324 Pa.Super. 200, 471 A.2d 533 (1984) (contempt not justified when voluntary intoxication did not disrupt, embarrass, or hinder the court). See generally 17 Am. Jur.2d Contempt § 74 (1990); Annot., Intoxication of Witness or Attorney as Contempt of Court, 46 A.L.R.4th 238 (1986). While we decline ourselves to reduce the six-month sentence imposed below, Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So.2d 458 (1943); but cf. Studnick v. State, 341 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 954 (Fla. 1977), the cause is remanded for prompt consideration of a motion to mitigate pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
Affirmed, remanded.
BARKDULL, J., concurs.
. The pertinent colloquy is as follows:
THE COURT: Page 10, Johnny Miller.
PROBATION OFFICER: I am not sure, he is under the influence of something.
(Whereupon the Defendant was called several times)
THE COURT: Mr. Miller, it appears you might be under the influence of something, is that correct? Let's try the truth.
THE DEFENDANT: M'am.
THE COURT: Are you under the influence of some drug at this time?
THE DEFENDANT: M'am.
THE COURT: I am going to have you tested. Can you hear me? Mr. Miller, it appears you may be under the influence of some controlled substance?
ATTORNEY: She said she thinks you are under the influence of some drugs or something, are you?
THE DEFENDANT: Inaudible.
ATTORNEY: He said he is on antibiotics. He got some sort of flu. English translation.
THE COURT: Mr Miller, listen to me. At this time I am going to have them do a urine test on you.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes M'am.
THE COURT: Unless you want to tell me about what you had this morning.
THE DEFENDANT: All I did was sat down for a while, I fell asleep.
THE COURT: If you are not going to tell what you are under, we will do a urine test .and we will find out. If you are clean, no problem. If you are not clean then you have a problem.
THE DEFENDANT: I had a little coke.
THE COURT: You had a little coke this morning?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, M'am.
THE COURT: You come to court on a contempt proceedings completely gone? What is wrong with you?
I need to think about this. Have a seat. We need to think about what needs to be done.
. The public defender is appointed to represent the defendant for this purpose.