GEORGE C. HIBBERT, 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.
The court held that a trial judge must inform a defendant of a criminal contempt accusation and provide an opportunity to present mitigating evidence before sentencing.
The trial judge held the defendant in direct criminal contempt without informing him of the accusation or giving him an opportunity to present mitigat…
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 Opportunity To Present Mitigating Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George Hibbert (“Hibbert”), appeals his judgment.and sentence for direct criminal contempt. We reverse.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 requires the trial judge to inform the defendant of the accusation of criminal contempt and inquire whether the defendant has cause to show why he should not be held in contempt and sentenced. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830. Rule 3.830 also requires the trial judge to give the defendant the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances before the sentencing. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830.
Here, the trial judge asked Hibbert to show cause why he should not be held in direct criminal contempt. However, the trial judge did not give Hibbert an opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances or to discuss why the trial judge should or should not impose a par ticular sentence. Thus, the trial judge failed to follow the procedural requirements, which is fundamental error. See Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and sentence for proper criminal contempt proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Searcy v. State, 971 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…e or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt, the trial court shall give the defendant “the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.” Id.; see Bonet v. State, 937 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hibbert v. State, 929 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Garrett, 876 So. 2d at 24. Merely asking the defendant if he wishes to explain his behavior does not meet the procedural requirement that he be given an opportunity to present evidence. O’Neal v. State, 501 So. 2d 98, 100 (Fla.…
-
Jarvis Ramon Haynes v. State, 944 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…on was based did not comply with the requirement of rule 3.830). However, the trial court did err by failing to permit Appellant to present evidence in mitigation, as authorized by rule 3.830. This is fundamental error. See, e.g., Hibbert v. State, 929 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). We believe that the proper remedy under the facts of this case is reversal of the sentence and remand for a new sentencing proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of contempt, reverse the sentence, and remand for re-sent…
-
Mickey Woodson v. State, 109 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ered of record. 6. The sentence shall be pronounced in open court. Id. at 862-63. Failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the rule constitutes fundamental error. Bonet v. State, 937 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hibbert v. State, 929 So. 2d 622-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24, 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Because the court did not provide Woodson with an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances, the judgment of guilt for direct criminal cont…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)