ROBERT L. JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant's convictions for direct criminal contempt must be reversed due to procedural deficiencies.
Appellant was convicted of three counts of direct criminal contempt arising from incidents during a hearing where he was a criminal defendant. The con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Opportunity To Present Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from three separate adjudications and sentences for direct criminal contempt arising out of incidents which occurred within a short time of each other during a hearing in which the appellant appeared as a criminal defendant in the court below. We reverse all of the convictions for new hearings.
We reach this result as to the first and third adjudications because, in each of these instances, the alleged misconduct is not objectively supported by the record before us. Thompson v. State, 618 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Ray v. State, 352 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1978); Krueger v. State, 351 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The second adjudication is deficient because the trial judge did not follow the mandatory requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 that:
Prior to the adjudication of guflt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against the defendant and inquire as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court and sentenced therefor. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830; Thaxton v. State, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); State ex rel. Garlovsky v. Eastmoore, 393 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) is uncannily similar both as to the content of the offending statement and the procedural impropriety involved.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poitier v. Spears, 750 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…al court did not enter an order adjudicating the defendant in direct criminal contempt and did not follow the mandatory requirements of the rule. Accordingly, the petitioner’s conviction on the contempt charge must be reversed. See Jackson v. State, 626 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Davis v. State, 575 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Jacobs v. State, 327 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted.…
Authorities Cited
- Krueger v. State, 351 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Colondro Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- RAY v. State of Fla. & the Honorable J. Robert Durden, 352 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- State ex rel. Joseph T. Garlovsky v. The Honorable E. L. Eastmoore, 393 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Vasco Dagama Thompson v. State, 618 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Murphy v. Hoenigmann, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Thaxton v. State, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)