RICHARD JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida appellate court granted habeas corpus petition because trial court failed to comply with Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 by not giving defendant adequate opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances in direct criminal contempt proceeding.
A trial court must provide a defendant with a real opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances in a direct criminal contempt proceeding, and failure to do so requires habeas corpus relief.
[1] A trial court must provide a defendant with a meaningful opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances in a direct criminal contempt proceeding…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances”
The court cited this language from Rhoads v. State to describe what Rule 3.830 requires in contempt proceedings.
Richard Johnson was found in direct criminal contempt of court based on testimony he gave during a probation revocation hearing.…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Based in part upon this court’s recent decision in Hutcheson v. State, 903 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), we grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus. As in Hutcheson, defendant Richard Johnson challenges an order finding him in direct criminal contempt of court based on testimony he gave during a probation revocation hearing. Although proper procedures were more closely adhered to this time, making it a much closer case, we find that the trial court still did not sufficiently comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830.
While the rule does not require appointed counsel, Johnson himself was given no real opportunity “to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.” See Rhoads v. State, 817 So. 2d 1089, 1092 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002); Sanjurjo v. State, 677 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1996); Royster v. State, 668 So. 2d 346, 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The granting of the petition is “without prejudice to the institution of proper contempt proceedings.” Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Telfair v. State, 903 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see Hagan v. State, 853 So. 2d 595, 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED.
SHARP, W., THOMPSON, and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pillot Lind v. State (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2015)…proceedings and the issue is pending before the Florida Supreme Court, Plank v. State, 145 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 2014), the Fifth District Court of Appeal holds that procedures under Rule 3.830 do not require the appointment of counsel. Johnson v. State, 906 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Therefore, the trial court did not err in failing to appoint counsel or to make a determination of Appellant’s ability to represent herself. Appellant also contends that her conduct in the courtroom did not rise to the level of…
Authorities Cited
- Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Hagan v. State, 853 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Hutcheson v. State, 903 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Davella v. State, 817 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Rivera v. State, 903 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Rhoads v. State, 817 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Royster v. State, 668 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Sanjurjo v. State, 677 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)