GERARDO BONET, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Gerardo Bonet appeals multiple convictions including three for direct criminal contempt and four other charges related to domestic violence and property crimes. The court reverses the three contempt convictions due to procedural violations but affirms the remaining convictions for aggravated stalking, violation of an injunction against domestic violence, attempted burglary, and criminal mischief.
The trial court improperly convicted and sentenced Bonet for contempt because it failed to comply with Rule 3.830, which requires the judge to inform the defendant of the contempt accusation, inquire whether the defendant has cause to show why contempt should not be found, and allow the defendant to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances before sentencing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bonet's request for new counsel because it conducted a sufficient inquiry addressing his concerns and properly found trial counsel competent.
[1] A trial court commits fundamental error by failing to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, which requires informing a defendant of accusations of crimina…
[2] A trial court must conduct a sufficient inquiry into a defendant's concerns when they request to discharge court-appointed counsel.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirements of Rule 3.830 for contempt convictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBonet was convicted of three instances of direct criminal contempt at the start of his trial, as well as aggravated stalking, violation of an injuncti…
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 Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, J.
Gerardo Bonet seeks reversal of three convictions for direct criminal contempt which occurred at the start of his trial, as well his convictions for aggravated stalking, violation of an injunction against domestic violence, attempted burglary, and criminal mischief, which followed. We reverse the contempt convictions but affirm Bonet’s convictions on the remainder of the charges.
We agree with Bonet that the trial court improperly convicted and sentenced him for three instances of contempt because it failed to comply with Rule 3.830 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. As this Court observed in Hibbert v. State, 929 So. 2d 622, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006):
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 requires the trial judge to inform the defendant of the accusation of criminal contempt and inquire whether the defendant has cause to show why he should not be held in contempt and sentenced. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830. Rule 3.830 also requires the trial judge to give the defendant the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances before the sentencing. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830.
As the State candidly concedes, the trial court failed to comply with these procedural requirements mandating reversal of these three contempt judgments. See Hutcheson v. State, 903 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“failure to follow the procedural requirements [of Rule 3.830] in contempt proceedings is fundamental error”); Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24, 25-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (confirming that “preservation of error is not required because any defect in [a Rule 3.830] contempt proceeding is fundamental error”).
We do not, however, agree with Bonet that the trial court’s denial of his request for a new attorney mandates reversal of the remainder of his convictions. The trial court conducted an inquiry which sufficiently addressed each of Bonet’s concerns and then properly found trial counsel competent to proceed. See Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256, 258-259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).1 On the record before us, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. See Wilson v. State, 889 So. 2d 114, 117-118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), citing, Moore v. State, 778 So. 2d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Accordingly, the three direct criminal contempt convictions are reversed and remanded for proceedings mandated by Rule 3.830; Bonet’s convictions for aggravated stalking, violation of an injunction against domestic violence, attempted burglary, and criminal mischief are affirmed.
. Nelson, 274 So. 2d at 258-259 explains:
[W]here a defendant, before the commencement of trial, makes it appear to the trial judge that he desires to discharge his court appointed counsel, the trial judge, in order to protect the indigent's right to effective counsel, should make an inquiry of the defendant as to the reason for the request to discharge. If incompetency of counsel is assigned by the defendant as the reason, or a reason, the trial judge should make a sufficient inquiry of the defendant and his appointed counsel to determine whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe that the court appointed counsel is not rendering effective assistance to the defendant. If reasonable cause for such belief appears, the court should make a finding to that effect on the record and appoint a substitute attorney who should be allowed adequate time to prepare the defense. If no reasonable basis appears for a finding of ineffective representation, the trial court should so state on the record and advise the defendant that if he discharges his original counsel the State may not thereafter be required to appoint a substitute.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Searcy v. State, 971 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…that, after asking the defendant to show cause why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt, the trial court shall give the defendant “the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.” Id.; see Bonet v. State, 937 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hibbert v. State, 929 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Garrett, 876 So. 2d at 24. Merely asking the defendant if he wishes to explain his behavior does not meet the procedural requirement that he be given an opportunity to present…
-
Mickey Woodson v. State, 109 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ng], 5. The judgment shall be signed by the judge and entered of record. 6. The sentence shall be pronounced in open court. Id. at 862-63. Failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the rule constitutes fundamental error. Bonet v. State, 937 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hibbert v. State, 929 So. 2d 622-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24, 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Because the court did not provide Woodson with an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating cir…
-
Castaneda v. State, 77 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…This rule “define[s] the essence of due process in criminal contempt and must be scrupulously followed.” Bouie v. State, 784 So. 2d 521, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Failure to scrupulously follow the rule constituted fundamental error. Bonet v. State, 937 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hibbert v. State, 929 So. 2d 622, 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24, 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). We therefore reverse Castaneda’s sentence for direct criminal contempt and remand to the trial court for pro…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Hutcheson v. State, 903 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Laron A. Mingo v. State, 889 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Moore v. State, 778 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Hibbert v. State, 929 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)