JOHN MICHAEL CHIULLI
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.
A written judgment of direct criminal contempt must specify the conduct upon which the adjudication is based in compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830.
[1] A written judgment of direct criminal contempt must specify the conduct constituting the contempt to satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830.
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 intelligenceJohn Michael Chiulli was found in direct criminal contempt by the trial court, and a written judgment was entered against him. The judgment did not sp…
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.
John Michael Chiulli appeals a written judgment of direct criminal contempt, arguing that the judgment failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. The State properly concedes error. Because the written judgment in this case fails to specify the conduct upon which the adjudication was based, we reverse the criminal contempt judgment entered below and remand with directions that the trial court render a judgment in compliance with rule 3.830. See Cutwright v. State, 934 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Hutcheson v. State, 903 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
EVANDER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hutcheson v. State, 903 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Cutwright v. State, 934 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)