DAVID L. KAHN, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Colondro Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
  …not be adjudicated guilty of contempt before punishment is imposed. Walker v. State, 559 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Scrupulous compliance with rule 3.830 is required because its provisions constitute the essence of due process. Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); and Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Here the trial judge failed to provide appellant with prior notice of the charge of contempt and then failed to give him an opportunity to explain before imposing sentence…
• Carnival Corp. v. Beverly, 744 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
  …w why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court.... “Scrupulous compliance with rule 3.830 is required because its provisions constitute the essence of due process.” Martin v. State, 711 So. 2d at 1174 (quoting Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)). The rule assures that “[bjefore a person may be held in criminal contempt, he must be sufficiently advised of the charge so as to accord him a reasonable opportunity to meet it by way of defense or explanation.” Young v. Wood-C…
• Berman v. State of Fla. & Chris Jones, 751 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
  …We have consistently held that strict compliance with Rule 3.830 is necessary to safeguard procedural due process. See Schenck v. State, 645 So. 2d 71, 72 (Fla.4th DCA 1994); Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). More recently, in Martin v. State, 711 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we reversed a direct criminal contempt conviction because the trial court failed to give the defendant an opportunity to explain why he should not be held i…

Authorities Cited

• Cordero v. State, 380 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
• Holden v. State, 380 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)