JOE HENRY POTTS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Direct Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, subpoenaed as a witness in a judicial proceeding, refused to testify, as a result of which the court found appellant to be in direct criminal contempt of the court.
There was no error in holding appellant in contempt of court, as his refusal to testify was without legal justification. There is a technical error in the judgment in that it fails to include a recital of those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based, as required by Rule 3.830 RCrP. See, Miller v. State, 305 So. 2d 826 (Fla.App. 4th 1975).
The record also discloses a discrepancy between the circuit court minutes which reflect a sentence “at hard labor,” and the sentence orally pronounced in court which properly omitted any reference to hard labor. See, McDonald v. State, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla.App. 4th 1975); Miller v. State, supra.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the purpose of (1) entering a corrected judgment meeting the requirements of Rule 3.830 RCrP., and (2) correcting the circuit court minutes.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osborne v. State, 430 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…wever, we accept his contention that the trial court committed a technical error by failing to recite in the judgment those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. Potts v. State, 330 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand with directions that the court render a judgment which complies with the requirements of Rule 3.830. REVERSED and REMANDED. BOARDMAN and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- McDONALD v. State, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Miller v. State, 305 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)