EDDIE ROBINSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1968-04-18
No. H-411
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
209 So. 2d 245 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1968) Caution
Cited by 6 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined the record on appeal, the briefs filed and the cases cited and find that no reversible error occurred in the lower court. Therefore, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. Law v. State, 204 So.2d 741 (Fla.App.2d, 1967); Kelly v. State, 202 So.2d 901 (Fla.App.2d, 1967); and Moffett v. State, 179 So.2d 408 (Fla.App.2d, 1965).

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Thomson v. State, 398 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
    …rder to be treated as a direct contempt, the act constituting the contempt must be committed in the immediate presence of the court, whereas a contemptuous act committed out of the presence of the court constitutes indirect contempt. Sharp v. Sharp, 209 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); In re S. L. T., 180 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Since notification by appellant of the assistant state attorney or the judge’s secretary would have been as satisfactory as his speaking personally to the judge himself, and this…
  • Deter v. Dinina D. Deter, 353 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
    …DCA 1962); In Interest of S.L.T., id.; Demetree v. State ex rel. Marsh, 89 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1956); Faircloth v. Faircloth, 321 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). . In Interest of S.L.T., supra note 1; Ballengee v. State, supra note 2. . Sharp v. Sharp, 209 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). . See Faircloth v. Faircloth, supra note 2. . See Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1977). . Pugliese v. Pugliese, id.; United Theaters of Florida, Inc. v. State ex ret Gerstein, 259 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). . P…
  • Chavez-Rey v. Chavez-Rey, 213 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
    …on of the trial court did not follow due process of law because it violated the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bloom v. State, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968), and the holding in Sharp v. Sharp, Fla.App.1968, 209 So. 2d 245. We hold that the requirements as to procedure set forth in those two cases do not apply to the instant case because the sentence for the criminal contempt was such as to indicate that it was not a serious criminal contempt within the guidelines set…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw