STEVE PATZ, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Steve Patz was adjudicated guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to six days in jail for misrepresenting his litigation history during voir dire in a civil case. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to provide Patz an opportunity to present mitigating evidence before sentencing, violating Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830.
The trial court's contempt adjudication and sentence were reversed because the court failed to comply with Rule 3.830's requirement that the defendant be given an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances prior to sentencing. Strict adherence to this rule is constitutionally mandated as a matter of due process.
[1] A trial court must afford a defendant the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances before adjudicating guilt and sentencing for direct crim…
[2] Failure to provide a defendant with an opportunity to present mitigating evidence prior to sentencing for direct criminal contempt is a fatal omission that warrants rever…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Prior to the adjudication of guilt 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.”
This establishes the mandatory requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 that the trial court violated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatz was a prospective juror in a medical malpractice civil case. During voir dire, when asked if he had been involved in lawsuits, he initially said …
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 Mitigation Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SORONDO, Judge.
Upon the state’s proper confession of error, we reverse the trial court’s order adjudicating the Appellant guilty of contempt and sentencing him to serve six (6) days in the Dade County Jail.
The Appellant was a prospective juror in a civil case involving a claim of medical malpractice. During the course of voir dire examination the court asked the prospective jurors if any of them had ever sued or been sued by anyone. Appellant initially responded that he had been involved in one lawsuit. He subsequently stated that “there’s been a few of them in the business itself.” In reality, Appellant had been named, as either plaintiff or defendant, in more than thirty (30) lawsuits. Upon discovering this fact, the trial court ordered Appellant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his misrepresentations during voir dire. The Appellant responded that he was sick during voir dire and that he honestly did not remember the other lawsuits. The trial judge was unimpressed with Appellant’s effort to purge himself of the contempt and found him guilty of contempt of court. The judge then sentenced Appellant to six (6) days in the county jail.
The state confesses error, and we reverse, because prior to sentencing, the court failed to afford the Appellant an opportunity to present evidence to mitigate his sentence. This omission is fatal to this adjudication and sentence for contempt of court. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 sets forth the specific requirements for an adjudication and sentence for direct criminal contempt:
Prior to the adjudication of guilt 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.
(Emphasis added). See also, Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); 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). The case law in this area is very clear that strict adherence to the rule is absolutely imperative. “Scrupulous compliance with Rule 3.830 is required because its provisions constitute the essence of due process.” Peters, 626 So. 2d at 1050.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to discharge Appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bauder v. State, 923 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…entenced him without complying with the rule, the judgment and sentence must be reversed.1 See Gopman v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., 885 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Kendrick v. Kendrick, 876 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Patz v. State, 691 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(stating that “[t]he case law in this area is very clear that strict adherence to the rule is absolutely imperative. ‘Scrupulous compliance with Rule 3.830 is required because its provisions constitute the essence of due proces…
-
Harris v. State, 773 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…tion for direct criminal contempt because of an improper remark he allegedly made to the trial judge must be reversed because of the court’s failure to adhere to the provisions of Florida Rule [*69] of Criminal Procedure 3.830. Accord Patz v. State, 691 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).…
Authorities Cited
- Colondro Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- State ex rel. Joseph T. Garlovsky v. The Honorable E. L. Eastmoore, 393 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Kahn v. State, 447 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Murphy v. Hoenigmann, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Thaxton v. State, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)