WAYNE MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Wayne Moore was convicted of criminal contempt and sentenced to six months at hard labor, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements for contempt judgments and sentencing, including failure to recite facts of the contempt and failure to follow proper sentencing procedures.
The court reversed the judgment and sentence because: (1) the judgment failed to recite the facts constituting the contempt as required by Rule 1.840(a)(6); (2) the trial court failed to comply with Rule 1.840(a)(7) by not informing the appellant of the accusation and judgment or inquiring whether he had cause to show why sentence should not be imposed; (3) the record did not show Moore was afforded opportunity to present mitigating circumstances; and (4) a person convicted of criminal contempt may not be sentenced to hard labor.
[1] A judgment of contempt must include a recital of the facts constituting the contempt.
[2] A trial court must inform a defendant of the accusation and judgment against them and inquire as to any cause why sentence should not be pronounced before imposing senten…
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“We agree that there was sufficient evidence to find a guilty verdict, but must reverse the judgment of the court since the judge failed to comply with the provisions of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 1.-840(a) (6), 33 F.S.A., in that the judgment did not include a recital of the facts constituting the contempt of which the appellant was found and adjudicated guilty.”
Establishes that despite sufficient evidence, procedural defects in the judgment itself require reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore was found guilty of contempt of court after a full hearing on a show cause order. The trial court sentenced him to six months at hard labor in t…
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
Appellant was found guilty of contempt of court after a full hearing was held pursuant to an order of the trial court to show cause why appellant should not be held in contempt of court. Appellant was sentenced to six months at hard labor in the county jail.
We agree that there was sufficient evidence to find a guilty verdict, but must reverse the judgment of the court since the judge failed to comply with the provisions of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 1.-840(a) (6), 33 F.S.A., in that the judgment did not include a recital of the facts constituting the contempt of which the appellant was found and adjudicated guilty.
The record on appeal does not show that the trial court, prior to pronouncing sentence, informed the appellant of the accusation and judgment against him and inquired as to whether appellant had any cause to show why the sentence should not be pronounced. Nor does the record show whether or not the appellant *881was afforded the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances prior to the imposition of the sentence. Both of these procedures are required under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 1.840(a) (7). The sentence directed that the six months imprisonment in the county jail was to be at “hard labor” as provided by Florida Statutes 922.05(2), F.S.A. It has been held in State ex rel. Saunders v. Boyer, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 694, that a person convicted of criminal contempt may not be sentenced to hard labor.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment and sentence is set aside and the cause remanded to the trial court for the entry of a proper judgment and sentence consistent with this opinion.
PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krathen v. State, 310 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…why he should not be adjudged guilty, and (3) failed to give him an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances, all contrary to the clear and express provisions of the rule. This was error. Moore v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 880; Berman v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 144. Technically speaking, the court did not err in denying the request for bond pending appeal because at the time such request was submitted to the court no notice of appeal had been filed. See Rule 6.15…
-
White v. Buck, 505 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ails to follow Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(a)(6), we set aside the judgment. The rule requires the order to set forth the [*37] facts upon which the judgment is based. Miller v. State, 305 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Moore v. State, 245 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Contempt proceedings often result in jail sentences, as did this one. For that reason the court must follow the law with precision, both to advise the accused and to permit meaningful appellate review. The judgment and sentence…
-
W. E. "Bill" Davis v. State, 261 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…s imposed thereon are set aside. The other assignments of error propounded by the appellant are either without merit or do not need to be treated by this Court. Reversed. CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur. . Moore v. State, 245 So. 2d 880 (Fla.App.2nd, 1971) and Berman v. State, 253 So. 2d 144 (Fla.App.3rd, 1971).…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burger v. Liselotte Burger, 166 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)