KENNETH GARBER, 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 held that the trial court erred by failing to comply with mandatory procedural rules before adjudicating the attorney in direct criminal contempt.
An attorney was held in direct criminal contempt and fined during his client's trial for contesting a ruling. The court did not inform the attorney of…
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 Direct Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM,
Appellant attorney was held in direct criminal contempt for conduct which occurred during the criminal trial of his client. We reverse. The record reveals that while appellant was vigorously defending his client the court overruled one of appellant’s objections and warned him not to contest the ruling any further or he would be held in contempt. Appellant made a further remark which the court construed as an argument with the ruling, and the court announced:
“THE COURT: That just cost you $50, Mr. Garber. You are hereby fined $50 for contempt of court. You may pay the Clerk. You may pay him at the end of the trial, or you will stay in the County Jail until you do pay him.”
We have considerable doubt that the conduct of the attorney was contemptuous. However, it is unnecessary to reach that issue. Here the court failed to comply with the requirements of RCrP 3.830 which requires that prior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against him and inquire as to whether he has any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt. The rule also requires the defendant be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. We have held on several occasions that compliance with this rule is mandatory. Mathis v. State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 317 So. 2d 778; Speller v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 305 So. 2d 231.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is REVERSED.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fisher v. State, 482 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ced in open court. It is necessary that the procedure set out in this rule be followed in order to insure due process to the accused and failure to do so must result in reversal. Ledlow v. State, 346 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Garber v. State, 335 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Holden v. State, 380 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Even technical errors, such as a failure to recite in the judgment those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt was based, require a reversal. Osborne v. State, 430 So. 2d 5…
Authorities Cited
- Speller v. State, 305 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Mathis v. State, 317 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)