DAVID H. KRATHEN, 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.
The court affirmed the conviction for indirect criminal contempt but vacated the sentence because it was imposed without compliance with Rule 3.840(7), FRCrP, which requires the judge to inform the defendant of the accusation and judgment, inquire about mitigating circumstances, and pronounce sentence in open court in the defendant's presence.
A conviction for indirect criminal contempt may be affirmed, but the sentence must be vacated and remanded if imposed without compliance with Rule 3.840(7), FRCrP.
[1] Sentencing for indirect criminal contempt must comply with Rule 3.840(7), FRCrP, which requires the judge to inform the defendant of the accusation and judgment, inquire…
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 intelligenceKrathen was adjudicated guilty of indirect criminal contempt for violating section 905.27(5), F.S. The trial court imposed sentence without following …
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 Sentencing Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon examination of the record and after due consideration of the briefs and oral argument we find no reversible error in the trial court’s order adjudicating appellant guilty of indirect criminal contempt for violating sec. 905.27(5), F.S. Cf. Widener v. Croft, 184 So. 2d 444 (Fla.App. 4th 1966); State v. Tillett, 111 So. 2d 716 (Fla.App. 2d 1959). However, we are of the opinion that the imposition of sentence fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.840(7), FRCrP, which provides:
“(7) The Sentence; Indirect Contempt. Prior to the pronouncement of sentence, the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation and judgment against him and inquire as to whether he has any cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced. The defendant shall be afforded the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances. The sentence shall be pronounced in open court and in the presence of the defendant.”
In particular, a reading of the judgment of contempt reflects that sentence was imposed without adherence to the above cited procedures.
Accordingly, the judgment of contempt is affirmed but that portion of the judgment imposing sentence.is vacated and set aside and the cause remanded for the purpose of conducting such other proceedings consistent herewith and for imposition of sentence, if any, in compliance with the requirements of Rule 3.840(7).
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., and KEOUGH, LAWRENCE E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Boone D. Tillett, Jr., 111 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Widener v. Croft, 184 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)