the right to legal counsel, (iv) the. right to confront witnesses, (v) the right to present witnesses, (vi) the right to have a transcript or record of the proceeding, and (vii) the right to appeal to an appropriate court. Likewise, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure contain two separate, but substantially identical, rules concerning the prosecution of indirect criminal contempt. Both rule 8.15 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding that defendant must be afforded notice of the charge, the specifics as to what conduct constituted the alleged contempt, and a hearing); Pryor v. Wille, 644 So.2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (quashing an order for indirect criminal contempt when the trial court failed to comply with the procedural rule); Benarroch v. Crawford, 516 So.2d 28, 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>). Juveniles are entitled to the due process
holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding that the trial courts order violated due process because it was unclear whether or not the defendant was required to appear on the date in question holding that the plaintiff has not raised a colorable claim that he was denied procedural due process because he did not allege that the available state remedies are constitutionally inadequate holding that the petitioners due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the immigration judge was biased was the kind of procedural error that required exhaustion holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand