Barnhill v. State

438 So. 2d 175, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21807
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 22, 1983
DocketNo. AQ-330
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 438 So. 2d 175 (Barnhill v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barnhill v. State, 438 So. 2d 175, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21807 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

SHIVERS, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for indirect criminal contempt. The petition for a rule to show cause filed by the State Attorney was sufficient to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.840(a)(1), Fla.R. Crim.P. See Vernell v. State, 212 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Moreover, the requirements of Rule 3.840(a)(6) were met in this case by the trial judge orally stating on the record the underlying facts constituting the contempt. See generally Adams v. State, 376 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) and Phipps v. State, 352 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Neal v. State
891 So. 2d 607 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Gidden v. State
593 So. 2d 294 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Barbosa-Fernandez v. State
585 So. 2d 1134 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
438 So. 2d 175, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnhill-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.