Does indirect criminal contempt require a sworn affidavit? In Pugh v. State, No. 4D2025-2916, decided November 12, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a four-day jail sentence imposed for failing to comply with timesharing orders. The conviction rested on dates alleged only in an unsworn motion, and the court held that the proceedings did not satisfy Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(a). Judge Klingensmith wrote for the panel, joined by Chief Judge Gerber and Judge Shepherd.
How the case reached the court. After a timesharing order in October 2024 and a January 2025 omnibus order warning of contempt, Ms. Pugh moved in April 2025 to temporarily suspend the former husband’s timesharing over alleged safety concerns. The Department of Children and Families decided not to take further action, and she withdrew the motion. The former husband then moved for indirect criminal contempt.
The trial court’s order to show cause did not state the essential facts itself. It attached and incorporated highlighted allegations from his contempt motion, which included what purported to be a notarized affidavit, and from an emergency motion for a child pickup order. The pickup motion carried a signed acknowledgment about swearing or affirming the claims, but the court treated it as unsworn.
What rule 3.840 requires. The court said a trial court must strictly comply with the rule once it elects criminal contempt sanctions. The rule lets a court issue an order to show cause on its own motion or on the affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts, stating the essential facts of the contempt. The opinion cites Fourth District authority calling the absence of an affidavit or sworn testimony supporting the order a fundamental defect, and also requires enough specificity to prepare a defense.
Why the indirect criminal contempt conviction failed. At trial, Ms. Pugh objected to any dates not supported by the sworn contempt motion, and the trial court considered the dates in both motions. The convictions were for April 11, 12, 13 and 23. Those events came after the contempt motion was filed on April 9 and were alleged only in the unsworn April 23 pickup motion. The court said the earlier affidavit “could not supply sworn factual support for those later events,” and its general assertions of intent to disobey did not identify the specific acts. A signed acknowledgment at the end of a pleading did not make it an affidavit.
What the court left open. The reversal is “without prejudice.” The opinion says that leaves the door open to new indirect criminal contempt proceedings that comply with rule 3.840, or to another lawful sanction short of criminal contempt. The court stated that its decision rests only on the procedural defect and that it takes no position on the merits of the alleged violations on the four dates. It did not decide whether any violation occurred. The opinion is not final until disposition of a timely filed motion for rehearing.
Related decisions: Does Late Filing of Charges Mean Automatic Discharge in Florida? No, the Supreme Court Says the State Still Gets a Recapture Period If an Officer Tells a Juvenile to Stand By, Is That a Seizure? What the Third DCA Cited in J.P. v. State
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Source: Pugh v. State, No. 4D2025-2916 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 12, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.
1 thought on “Does Indirect Criminal Contempt Need a Sworn Affidavit? A Florida Appeals Court Reversed a Four-Day Jail Sentence for Missed Timesharing”