ERIC JUBAR DUBERRY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Bret Mayo appeals his indirect criminal contempt conviction for violating an injunction. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840's strict procedural requirements for contempt proceedings, including failing to state essential facts in the show cause order, failing to notify Mayo of his rights, and denying his request for adequate representation.
The contempt proceedings were fundamentally deficient and reversed because the trial court failed to comply with rule 3.840(a) by not stating essential facts in the show cause order and not attaching the petition, failed to inform Mayo of his right to counsel, and denied his request for adequate time to prepare a defense and retain representation. Strict compliance with rule 3.840 is required, and these deficiencies constitute fundamental error regardless of whether objected to at trial.
[1] A conviction and sentence will be affirmed when the appellate court finds no merit in the issues raised on appeal.
[2] A trial court's oral ruling of competency to proceed with sentencing must be followed by the entry of a written order.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The prosecution of indirect criminal contempt is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. Florida courts have held that failure to strictly follow the dictates of that rule is fundamental error.”
Establishes that strict compliance with rule 3.840 is required and that non-compliance is fundamental error requiring reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKerry Mayo filed a petition for contempt against Bret Mayo for violating an injunction. Bret Mayo was not served with the petition. The court issued a…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Order cases and more on FLexlaw
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ERIC JABAR DUBERRY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-2095 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________)
Opinion filed September 30, 2020.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christopher C. Sabella and Kimberly K. Fernandez, Judges.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Siobhan Helene Shea, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
KHOUZAM, Chief Judge.
Eric Jabar Duberry appeals his judgment and sentences for robbery with a
firearm and attempted robbery with a firearm. We affirm without comment all five issues
raised by Mr. Duberry, but remand for entry of a written order of competency.
The trial court failed to enter a written order on its oral ruling that Mr.
Duberry was competent to proceed with sentencing. "Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.212(b) mandates the entry of a written order of competency." Holland v.
State, 185 So. 3d 636, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d
672, 677 (Fla. 2014)). The State properly concedes that the absence of such an order
warrants remand.
Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro
tunc order finding Mr. Duberry competent to proceed with sentencing.
Affirmed; remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur.