ALEXANDER JOHN MARSHALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of an order of direct criminal contempt. Because the lower court failed to inquire as to whether appellant had any cause to show why he should not be adjudicated guilty of contempt and failed to give appellant an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, the judgment of direct criminal contempt must be reversed. See Royster v. State, 668 So. 2d 346, 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Clark v. State, 625 So. 2d 68, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); O’Neal v. State, 501 So. 2d 98, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Our reversal is “without prejudice to the institution of proper contempt proceedings.” Royster, 668 So. 2d at 346.
BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR; WOLF, J„ SPECIALLY CONCURRING WITH OPINION.
WOLF, J.
specially concurring.
I agree with the viewpoint expressed by Judge Joanos in his dissent in O’Neal v. State, 501 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Based on existing precedent, however, I am required to concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…t determined that merely asking the defendant if he wished to explain his behavior was insufficient to meet the requirement that the defendant be given an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. In Marshall v. State, 764 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), we cited O’Neal, and again reversed an order of direct criminal contempt because the judge “failed to give appellant an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence.” In the instant case appellant was neither informed…1 / 2
-
DE LA Portilla v. State, 142 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…CA 2004) (reversing contempt order because “appellant was neither informed that under the rule he could present mitigating circumstances, [*934] nor given a separate and distinct opportunity to present mitigating circumstances.”); Marshall v. State, 764 So. 2d 908, 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing contempt order because trial court “failed to inquire as to whether appellant had any cause to show why he should not be adjudicated guilty of contempt and failed to give appellant an opportunity to present excusi…
-
T.J.L. v. State, 139 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…t determined that merely asking the defendant if he wished to explain his behavior was insufficient to meet the requirement that the defendant be given an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. In Marshall v. State, 764 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), we cited O’Neal, and again reversed an order of direct criminal contempt because the judge “failed to give appellant an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence.” [*506] In this case the juvenile appellant was aske…
Authorities Cited
- O'Neal v. State, 501 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- A.C. Clark v. State, 625 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Royster v. State, 668 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)