JAMES RUSSELL WARD, 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.
A contempt judgment is invalid if it does not recite the facts upon which it is based, and a sentence cannot be ordered to commence consecutively to a future, yet-to-be-imposed sentence.
James Russell Ward was found in direct criminal contempt. The judgment simply stated 'misbehavior' as the basis, and the sentence was ordered to be se…
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
SHEPHERD, J.
James Russell Ward appeals the trial court’s judgment and sentence finding him to be in direct criminal contempt. We reverse and remand.
Ward argues that the judgment does not comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. “A contempt judgment which does not contain a recital of those facts upon which it is based is invalid and requires reversal.” Montoya v. State, 695 So. 2d 873, 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); see also Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895, 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Here the judge simply states that Ward was held in contempt for “misbehavior.” This is insuf ficient to meet the requirement of Rule 3.830.
Additionally, Ward contends that his six-month contempt sentence is illegal because it was entered consecutively to a sentence yet to be imposed. We agree. See Jarrett v. State, 665 So. 2d 331, 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(“it is error to direct that a sentence commence at the conclusion of a future sentence yet to be announced”); Percival v. State, 506 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)(a sentence imposed may only be required to be served consecutively to an existing sentence). In this case, the trial court entered a sentence for contempt before sentencing Ward on the underlying substantive offenses.
For the foregoing reasons, we remand this matter to the trial court to enter an appropriate judgment pursuant to Rule 3.830 and to strike that portion of Ward’s sentence that requires his contempt sentence be served consecutively to any future sentence. Marino v. State, 635 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). In doing so, we express no opinion on the merits of this case.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. State, 961 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ch the adjudication of guilt is based.” As the order clearly fails to contain the required factual recital, we are obliged to reverse the order appealed and to remand for the entry of an order that complies with rule 3.830. See, e.g., Ward v. State, 908 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); McGlamory v. State, 723 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Reversed and Remanded. POLEN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Cook v. State, 636 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Montoya v. State, 695 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Percival v. State, 506 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Marino v. State, 635 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Jarrett v. State, 665 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)