VINCENT DEMOND WESLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
VINCENT DEMOND WESLEY, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
849 So. 2d 426
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2003)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
BARFIELD, J.
The state concedes that the contempt proceedings below did not comply with the due process provisions incorporated in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, and that this constituted fundamental error. The appellant’s argument that the adjudication of contempt was not supported by the record evidence was not preserved for appellate review. The judgment and sentence are REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with rule 3.840, see Paletti v. State, 727 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Hunt v. State, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hutcheson v. State, 903 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…, citing Williams v. State, 698 So. 2d 1350, 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Further, the failure to follow the procedural requirements in contempt proceedings is fundamental error. See Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Wesley v. State, 849 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The trial court entered a form order which fails to include any recitation of facts upon which the direct criminal contempt adjudication is based. For this reason alone, and even in the absence of any objection below, reversal…
-
Kramer A. Litvak v. Scylla Props., LLC, 946 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ill either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.’ ” Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla.1992) (quoting Morgareidge v. Howey, 75 Fla. 234, 78 So. 14, 15 (1918)). See also Kissoon v. Araujo, 849 So. 2d 426, 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The Litvak group claim just such an interest here.9 The Litvak group have asserted interests in insurance proceeds that are the subject of and already at issue in the present litigation. [*1173] As nonnamed members of the c…
-
Harbor Specialty Ins. Co. v. Schwartz, 932 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…efend. Because Harbor Specialty does not have a subrogation interest in this case, its reliance on the above three cases is not persuasive. Harbor Specialty’s interest in this case is analogous to the interest of the appellant in Kissoon v. Araujo, 849 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), which the First District found insufficient to support intervention. In the underlying tort action in that case, the plaintiff sued the defendant doctors for wrongful death. Id. at 428. In one of the defendants’ expert’s deposit…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Green v. State, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Ests. OF William H. Schutt v. Robert Spielman and wife, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Paletti v. State, 727 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)