Case Name: Robert James WALKER, Petitioner, v. Honorable E. Randolph BENTLEY, as Circuit Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-08-30
Citations: 660 So. 2d 313
Docket Number: No. 95-01084
Parties: Robert James WALKER, Petitioner, v. Honorable E. Randolph BENTLEY, as Circuit Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Respondent.
Judges: FULMER, J., concurs specially with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 660
Pages: 313–328

Head Matter:
Robert James WALKER, Petitioner, v. Honorable E. Randolph BENTLEY, as Circuit Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Respondent.
No. 95-01084.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Aug. 30, 1995.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Howard L. Dimmig, II, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for petitioner.
Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr. of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, P.A., Tampa, for respondent.
.Edwards was found in contempt for violating a temporary restraining order and incarcerated, subject to a purge provision. He sought a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his length of imprisonment had exceeded the thirty day incarcer-ative sanction then prescribed by the legislature for contempt.

Opinion:
LAZZARA, Judge.
The petitioner, Robert James Walker, seeks a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent circuit judge from exercising jurisdiction in an indirect criminal contempt proceeding initiated to punish him for an alleged violation of a domestic violence injunction issued pursuant to section 741.30, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). He contends that the provisions of section 741.30(8)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), specifically limit the respondent's jurisdiction to the use of civil contempt to enforce compliance with such an injunction. Because this statute purports to divest the respondent of the jurisdiction to use the power of indirect criminal contempt, prohibition is the appropriate remedy. See Department of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Bonanno, 568 So.2d 24 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction.
We deny the writ because, as will be discussed, the legislature has no authority under the doctrine of the separation of powers embodied in article II, section 3 of the Flori da Constitution, to limit the jurisdiction of a circuit court in the exercise of its constitutionally inherent power of contempt. Furthermore, although we construe section 741.30(8)(a) in a manner consistent with the constitution, we certify two questions of great public importance regarding its interpretation and constitutionality.
ANALYSIS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEGISLATION
In 1984, the legislature substantially revised section 741.30, Florida Statutes (1983), by creating a simplified, expedited procedure for obtaining from a circuit court an injunction for protection against domestic violence. See Ch. 84-343, § 10, at 1987-1990, Laws of Fla. (codified at section 741.30, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1984)). Such an injunction could now "be obtained directly, quickly, without an attorney's help, and at little monetary cost." Office of State Attorney v. Parrotino, 628 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1993). The legislature also provided that the court issuing the injunction was required to enforce compliance through "contempt proceedings." § 741.30(9)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1984).
In 1986, the legislature again amended the statute by providing that the court issuing the injunction "shall enforce" compliance through "civil or indirect criminal contempt proceedings." See Ch. 86-264, § 1, at 1973, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 741.30(9)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1986)). It also created a statute which criminalized specifically defined willful violations of a domestic injunction and provided that the penalty for such a violation was to be in addition to any penalty imposed for contempt. See Ch. 86-264, § 2, at 1974, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 741.31, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986)).
During the 1994 legislative session, the legislature again revised the statutes relating to domestic violence. See Ch. 94H34, § 1-6, at 384-391, Laws of Fla. The revised statutes took effect July 1,1994, and apply to offenses committed on or after that date. See Ch. 94-134, § 36, at 405, Laws of Fla. In making these revisions, the legislature specifically determined that domestic violence was to "be treated as an illegal act rather than a private matter, and for that reason, indirect criminal contempt may no longer be used to enforce compliance with injunctions for protection against domestic violence." § 741.2901(2), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1994) (revision underscored). To effectuate this policy change, it provided that "[t]he state attorney in each circuit shall adopt a pro-prosecution policy for acts of domestic violence[ ]" and that "[t]he filing, nonfiling, or diversion of criminal charges shall be determined . over the objection of the victim, if necessary." Id. (revision underscored). The legislature also expanded the incidents giving rise to a criminal prosecution for violating a domestic violence injunction and increased the penalty for such a violation from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree. Compare § 741.31, Fla.Stat. (1993) with § 741.31, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). It eliminated, however, the provision that the penalty for such a criminal violation was to be in addition to any penalty imposed through contempt proceedings. Id.
With respect to the judiciary's role in the enforcement process, the legislature manifested a clear intent that a circuit court could now only "[ejnforce, through a civil contempt proceeding, a violation of an injunction for protection against domestic violence which is not a criminal violation under s. 741.31." § 741.2902(2)(g), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1994). It substantively codified this intent in section 741.30(8)(a), which provides in part that "[t]he court shall enforce, through a civil contempt proceeding, a violation of an injunction for protection which is not a criminal violation under s. 741.31." (Emphasis added.) This revision purported to divest the circuit courts of their previous statutory authority to use an indirect criminal contempt proceeding as one of the methods to enforce compliance with any violation of a domestic violence injunction. See § 741.30(9)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993).
We glean from these revisions the legislature's clear intent to prosecute and punish substantive violations of domestic violence injunctions through traditional means of criminal prosecution in the county courts rather than through the use of indirect criminal contempt proceedings by the circuit courts that issue the injunctions. We also perceive the legislature's intent to limit circuit courts to the use of civil contempt as the means of punishing violations that do not fall vrithin the criminal ambit of section 741.31. See In re Report of the Comm'n on Family Courts, 646 So.2d 178, 180 (Fla.1994). While such a legislative approach to combat an ongoing societal problem may be laudable, we conclude that to the extent it infringes on the time-honored and well-recognized constitutional authority of a circuit court to punish by indirect criminal contempt an intentional violation of a court order, it violates the doctrine of the separation of powers embodied in article II, section 8 of the Florida Constitution. Our conclusion is based on the following analysis.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
We initially note that in In re Report, the Florida Supreme Court addressed the "administrative Frankenstein" created by chapter 94-134, pointing out that "it has placed the violation of some provisions of domestic injunctions in the jurisdiction of the criminal division of county courts while the violations of other provisions in the injunction remain in the family law divisions of the circuit courts." 646 So.2d at 180. One interesting aspect noted by the court was the possibility that the circuit court judge who issued the injunction may have to appear as a prosecution witness in the county court criminal proceeding. Significantly, although not addressing the issue, the court foresaw that "[a] separation of powers issue exists as to whether the legislature has the authority to completely eliminate the judicial power of indirect criminal contempt to punish those who violate judicial orders." Id. at n. 1.
The legislature may have foreseen this separation of powers problem because, in the recently concluded 1996 session, it once again purported to restore the criminal contempt power to a circuit court to enforce a violation of a domestic injunction occurring on or after July 1, 1995. See Ch. 95-195, § 5, at 1400, Laws of Fla. Notwithstanding this legislative change of mind, however, the separation of powers issue inherent in section 741.30(8)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), remains viable for offenses, such as petitioner's, occurring between July 1,1994, and July 1, 1995. Accordingly, the doctrine of mootness does not preclude us from addressing that issue in this case because our decision will not only affect the rights of the petitioner, it will also affect a significant number of other individuals who occupy the same status as petitioner, thereby determining a question of great public importance in the realm of a pressing social problem. See State v. Kin-ner, 398 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1981).
CONTEMPT POWER ANALYSIS
We begin our substantive analysis by noting that many years ago the Florida Supreme Court made it clear that under the power vested in the judicial branch of government by article V, section 1 of the Florida Constitution, courts of this state "are by the law protected from insult and interference, for the purpose of giving them their due weight and authority in performing their judicial functions in the interest of orderly government." Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297, 313, 95 So. 755, 760 (1923). Thus, it concluded that under our constitutional form of government, the judiciary has the "inherent power by due course of law to appropriately punish by fine or imprisonment or otherwise, any contempt that in law constitutes an offense against the authority and dignity of a court or judicial officer in the performance of judicial functions." Id. (emphasis added). The court then defined the various species of contempt punishable by this "inherent power" to be "direct or indirect or constructive, or criminal or civil, according to their essential nature." Id. (emphasis added).
Under Earman, therefore, circuit courts established under the provisions of article V of the Florida Constitution have inherent constitutional authority to invoke the power of indirect criminal contempt under appropriate circumstances. Of course, in invoking this power in the modern era, courts must now strictly comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 governing the prosecution of indirect criminal contempts, as well as scrupulously afford the alleged contemnor the full panoply of constitutionally mandated protections applicable to criminal proceedings. See, e.g., International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, — U.S. -,-, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2556-2557, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994); Aaron v. State, 284 So.2d 673, 677 (Fla.1973).
The supreme court subsequently observed that the power to punish for contempt exists independently of any statutory grant of authority as essential to the execution and maintenance of judicial authority. Ducksworth v. Boyer, 125 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla.1960); see also In re Hayes, 72 Fla. 558, 568, 73 So. 362, 365 (1916) (recognizing inherent power of supreme court, independent of statutory authority, to punish for contempt of court). The court later determined, in reliance on Earman and Ducksworth, that a juvenile court had the inherent authority to invoke its power of indirect criminal contempt to punish a juvenile for willful disobedience of its order. R.M.P. v. Jones, 419 So.2d 618, 620 (Fla.1982), receded from on other grounds, A.A. v. Rolle, 604 So.2d 813 (Fla.1992); see also T.D.L. v. Chinault, 570 So.2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), approved, 604 So.2d 813 (Fla.1992) (inherent power of court to punish for contempt not extinguished because offender is a juvenile).
More important, in State ex rel. Franks v. Clark, 46 So.2d 488 (Fla.1950), the court made it abundantly clear that because the legislature has statutorily conferred the general power of contempt on the judiciary does not mean it has the corresponding authority to later withdraw that power. As the court stated:
We take notice of [section 38.22, Florida Statutes (1949)] but do not construe it inasmuch as we are able to uphold the order without the benefit of the legislative act. A grant of power to a court is tempting but the acknowledgment of it presupposes the authority to withdraw same.
46 So.2d at 489. See also AA v. Rolle, 604 So.2d 813, 820 (Overton, J., dissenting) (legislature without authority to eliminate inherent power of contempt from constitutionally created circuit court).
In view of this analysis, it is readily apparent that although the legislature at one point purported to vest the circuit courts with the power of indirect criminal contempt to enforce compliance with a domestic violence injunction, its attempt to do so constituted mere statutory surplusage because such courts already had the inherent constitutional authority, independent of any specific statutory grant, to invoke this power for willful disobedience of any of their orders. It follows, therefore, that the legislature had no authority at a later point to withdraw the power of indirect criminal contempt because a power the legislature cannot confer in the first instance cannot be taken away. See State ex rel. Franks v. Clark, 46 So.2d 488; see also M.C. Dransfield, Annotation, Legislative Power to Abridge, Limit, or Regulate Power of Courts with Respect to Contempts, 121 A.L.R. 215, 216 (1939) (stating general rule "that the legislature cannot abridge or destroy the judicial power to punish for contempt, since a power which the legislature does not give, it cannot take away."). Accordingly, the respondent's use of section 741.30 as the sole basis for issuing the injunction did not limit him to the use of the species of contempt provided for in the statute because, as noted, the legislature had no authority in the first instance to control the type of contempt to be used in enforcing compliance with such an injunction.
We are aware, however, that early in Florida's history the supreme court recognized the legislature's authority, for the protection of personal liberty, to limit and restrict the "omnipotent" common law powers of the courts in terms of the punishment to be imposed for the class of contempts described as punitive in character. Ex parte Edwards, 11 Fla. 174,186 (1867). In continuing recognition of this concept, the court, relying on Edwards, recently held that "the sanctions to be used by the courts in punishing contempt may properly be limited by statute." A.A. v. Rolle, 604 So.2d 813, 815 (Fla.1992) (emphasis in original). In reaching this conclusion, however, it carefully pointed out that the issue to be decided was not the inherent power of a court to adjudicate for contempt, but how and to what extent the legislature intended the contempt to be punished. Thus, the court continued to adhere to the fundamental proposition that courts have inherent power to make a finding of contempt. Id.
We construe Edwards and Rolle to mean that the legislature has the authority to prescribe the punishment a court may impose after it exercises its inherent power of contempt. We do not construe them to hold, however, that it has the authority to bar the use of the contempt power altogether. We perceive, in that regard, a substantive difference between the legislature's authority to determine the sanctions to be imposed for contempt and a circuit court's inherent constitutional power to determine the species of contempt it chooses to use to enforce its orders and vindicate its authority. We conclude, therefore, that the legislature's authority to restrict the sanctions which courts may impose after a finding of contempt does not give it the concomitant authority to completely eliminate the power itself. See State ex rel. Franks v. Clark, 46 So.2d 488.
We note that Florida is not alone in espousing this fundamental doctrine. Other states with constitutionally created courts also recognize this concept. See, e.g., State ex rel. Oregon State Bar v. Lenske, 243 Or. 477, 495, 407 P.2d 250, 256 (Or.1965) (and cases and authorities cited) (holding that "the power of a constitutionally established court to punish for contempt may be regulated within reasonable bounds by the legislature but not to the extent that the court's power is substantially impaired or destroyed."), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 943, 86 S.Ct. 1460, 16 L.Ed.2d 541 (1966) (emphasis added). Significantly, even in the federal system, where the inferior courts are established by Congress, the United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that "while the exercise of the contempt power is subject to reasonable regulation, 'the attributes which inhere in that power and are inseparable from it can neither be abrogated nor rendered practically inoperative.' " Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 799, 107 S.Ct. 2124, 2133, 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987) (quoting Michaelson v. United States, 266 U.S. 42, 66, 45 S.Ct. 18, 20, 69 L.Ed. 162 (1924)) (emphasis added).
Finally, the fact that the legislature has created criminal sanctions for specifically-defined violations of a domestic injunction does not deprive a circuit court of its inherent power to punish these same violations by indirect criminal contempt. We find support for this conclusion in Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335, 341, 141 So. 185, rehearing denied, 107 Fla. 858, 143 So. 436 (1932), in which the facts clearly demonstrate that the defendant was found in indirect criminal contempt for jury tampering and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In denying the petition for "writ of habeas corpus, the court stated:
The fact, also, that jury tampering is by statute (Comp.Gen.Laws 1927 § 7483) made an indictable offense, for which the accused may be prosecuted criminally, does not deprive the court of its inherent power to punish the guilty party for contempt.
105 Fla. at 341, 141 So. at 188 (emphasis added). We recognize, however, that given the judicial evolution in the law since Baum-gartner, the Double Jeopardy Clause may now prohibit the imposition of dual punishments in such a factual setting. See United States v. Dixon, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993).
SEPARATION OF POWERS ANALYSIS
Against this backdrop, we note the fundamental proposition espoused in this state that " 'the courts have authority to do things that are absolutely essential to the performance of their judicial functions[.]"' Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So.2d 1109, 1113 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1043, 107 S.Ct. 908, 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987) (quoting Rose v. Palm Beach County, 361 So.2d 135, 137 (Fla.1978)). An essential corollary to the preservation of this judicial authority is the principle that "[a]ny legislation that hampers judicial action or interferes with the discharge of judicial functions is unconstitutional." Simmons v. State, 160 Fla. 626, 628, 36 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla.1948) (quoting 11 Am.Jur. 908). These precepts have their genesis in the doctrine of the separation of powers, which has as its goal the preservation of the inherent powers of the three branches of government and the prevention of one branch from infringing on the powers of the others to the detriment of our system of constitutional rule. Daniels v. State Rd. Dep't, 170 So.2d 846 (Fla.1964).
The citizens of this state have expressly codified this doctrine in article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, thereby adopting one of the doctrine's fundamental prohibitions that "no branch may encroach upon the powers of another." Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, and F, 589 So.2d 260, 264 (Fla.1991). To achieve this constitutional goal of separation of governmental powers, the courts of this state are charged with diligently safeguarding the powers vested in one branch from encroachment by another. Pepper v. Pepper, 66 So.2d 280 (Fla.1953).
Given our analysis of the law of contempt in conjunction with this constitutional framework, we conclude that the legislature's attempt by the use of the word "shall" in section 741.30(8)(a), to limit the judiciary's authority to civil contempt proceedings for the enforcement of domestic violence injunctions contravenes article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution. Such a restriction, if given mandatory effect, would constitute an unconstitutional infringement on a court's inherent power, historically rooted in our constitution, to carry out the judicial function of punishing by indirect criminal contempt an individual who has intentionally violated an order of the court. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985); see also Fernandez v. Kellner, 55 So.2d 793 (Fla.1951) (court's power and authority to punish by contempt a willful violation of an injunction cannot be questioned), appeal dismissed, 344 U.S. 802, 73 S.Ct. 40, 97 L.Ed. 625 (1952).
CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF SECTION U1.30(8)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.19U)
We are mindful, however, of the basic principles of statutory analysis that we are to presume that the legislature intended to enact a constitutionally valid law and that we have a duty to interpret a statute so that it withstands constitutional scrutiny. E.g., State v. Deese, 495 So.2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). At first blush, such a task seems insurmountable because the legislature has manifested a clear intent within the context of the revised statutory scheme to ascribe a mandatory connotation to the use of the word "shall" in section 740.30(8)(a). See, e.g., S.R. v. State, 346 So.2d 1018 (Fla.1977). Thus, although we recognize our duty to give effect to the legislature's intent, nevertheless, to uphold the constitutionality of the statute, we must look to the rule of law that when the legislature uses the word "shall" in prescribing the action of a court in a field of operation where the legislature has no authority to act, the word is to be interpreted as permissive or directory, rather than mandatory. Rich v. Ryals, 212 So.2d 641 (Fla.1968); Simmons, 160 Fla. 626, 36 So.2d 207.
In rebanee on this principle, we conclude that the legislature's use of the word "shall" in section 741.30(8)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), must be interpreted to mean "may" and, as such, is merely directory. See State ex rel. Harrington v. Genung, 300 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Given this interpretation, we specifically hold that a circuit court has the inherent authority, if it so chooses in its discretion, to enforce compbance with a domestic violence injunction issued pursuant to section 741.30, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), by means of an indirect criminal contempt proceeding. We further hold that the fact the alleged violation of the injunction may also constitute a criminal offense under section 741.31, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), does not preclude the use of the power of indirect criminal contempt. In making this determination, however, the court must be mindful of the impbeations of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See, e.g., Hernandez v. State, 624 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND CERTIFIED QUESTIONS
Like the supreme court, we too "recognize the extreme importance of having domestic violence issues addressed in an expeditious, efficient, and debberative manner[ ] [and] . do not want these important issues to become bogged down in an administrative morass[,]" which may be occurring as a consequence of the 1994 statutory revisions. In re Report of Comm'n on Family Courts, 646 So.2d at 182. Accordingly, because our decision has statewide significance in an area involving how to best address one of the most serious problems confronting our society— violence within the domestic context — we certify the fobowing questions of great pubbe importance:
IS THE WORD "SHALL" AS USED IN SECTION 741.30(8)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1994), TO BE INTERPRETED AS MANDATORY RATHER THAN AS PERMISSIVE OR DIRECTORY?
IF INTERPRETED AS MANDATORY, IS SECTION 741.30(8)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1994), AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENCROACHMENT ON THE CONTEMPT POWER OF THE JUDICIARY IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 3 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
Petition denied. Questions certified.
FULMER, J., concurs specially with opinion.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., dissents with opinion.
. Because the basis of the motion for contempt in this case was an incident occurring after July 1, 1994, the revised statutory scheme applies to the proceeding pending before the respondent.
. Such legislative action seems curiously ironic in light of the expressed intent to treat domestic violence as an affront to public law. Traditionally, one of the weE-recognized purposes of criminal contempt proceedings is "to punish conduct offensive to the public in violation of a court order." Adirim v. City of Miami, 348 So.2d 1226, 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (emphasis added).
. See, e.g., Giles v. Renew, 639 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (failure to comply with rule 3.840 fundamental error).
. It is obvious from the facts of Clark that the petitioner Franks was adjudged in indirect criminal contempt for jury tampering and sentenced to a term of incarceration without a purge provision.
. As previously noted, Rolle receded from R.M.P. v. Jones, 419 So.2d 618, but only "to the extent that it may suggest conflict with the established principle that the legislature is responsible for determining the punishment for crimes." 604 So.2d at 815, n. 7.
. U.S. Const, art I, § 8, cl. 9; art. Ill, § 1.