MICKEY WOODSON, 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.
Mickey Woodson appealed his conviction and six-month sentence for direct criminal contempt, arguing the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the court's failure to provide Woodson an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances constituted fundamental error requiring reversal.
The court reversed Woodson's conviction because the trial court failed to strictly comply with rule 3.830's procedural requirements, specifically by failing to provide Woodson with an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances before sentencing. Such failure constitutes fundamental error.
[1] Direct criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court observed the contemptuous conduct in its presence.
[2] A judgment of guilt for direct criminal contempt must include a recital of the facts upon which guilt is based.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is clear from the record that Woodson's conduct was contemptuous, as he showed substantial disrespect for the court and continued to use expletives in defiance of the court's instruction to calm down”
Establishes that the conduct itself was admittedly contemptuous, but procedural defects still required reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoodson engaged in contemptuous conduct in the courtroom, showing substantial disrespect for the court and using expletives in defiance of the court's…
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 Direct Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
Mickey Woodson appeals his conviction and six-month sentence for direct criminal contempt based on the trial court’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. We reverse.
It is clear from the record that Wood-son’s conduct was contemptuous, as he showed substantial disrespect for the court and continued to use expletives in defiance of the court’s instruction to calm down so that the court could explain the circumstances that led to revocation of his pretrial release. However, as the State graciously concedes, the court failed to adhere to the strict requirements of rule 3.830 *868when it conducted the contempt proceeding and pronounced sentence.
We outlined the steps that must be taken to comply with the requirements of rule 3.830 in Castaneda v. State, 77 So.3d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). The procedural requirements are as follows:
1. Direct criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court.
2. The judgment of guilt for contempt shall include a recital of those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based.
3. Prior to the adjudication of guilt, the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against him or her and inquire as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court and sentenced therefor.
4. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances [before sentencing],
5. The judgment shall be signed by the judge and entered 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 contempt must therefore be reversed.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robertson v. State, 134 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…WELLS, Judge. Affirmed without prejudice to the filing of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(a) motion to correct the sentence imposed to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Scott v. State, 109 So. 3d 866, 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“The oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over a subsequent and conflicting written sentencing order.”); Wright v. State, 98 So. 3d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“[A]ny discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the…
-
Charlemagne v. State, 114 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…s, the trial court must scrupulously honor the requirements of rule 3.830 to safeguard a contemnor’s right to procedural due process. The failure to strictly comply with the requirements of rule 3.830 constitutes fundamental error. Woodson v. State, 109 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) and cases cited therein. Because the trial court failed to provide Charlemagne an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances before adjudicating him guilty and imposing sentence, we reverse the judgmen…
-
Nelson v. State, 233 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…Department of Corrections brought to the attention of the trial court a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of Appellant’s sentences and the written sentencing orders, the trial court attempted to correct the discrepancy. See Scott v. State, 109 So. 3d 866, 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“The oral pronouncement of sentence prevails over a subsequent and conflicting written sentencing order.”); Wright v. State, 98 So. 3d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“[A]ny discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Hibbert v. State, 929 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Bonet v. State, 937 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- City OF Deland & Multi-Line Claims Serv. v. Wilkins, 937 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Castaneda v. State, 77 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)