Berman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Berman v. State

253 So. 2d 144

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 1971

DocketNo. 71-177

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 253 So. 2d 144 (Berman 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

Berman v. State, 253 So. 2d 144 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the trial court for a charged direct criminal contempt. The judgment and sentence must be reversed upon the authority of Moore v. State, Fla.App.1971, 24S So.2d 880. The state attempts to argue that there was a substantial compliance with rule 1.830, Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., but the record reveals: (1) a failure to recite in the judgment those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based, (2) a failure to inform the defendant prior to adjudication [145]*145of the accusation against him, (3) a failure to inquire as to whether the defendant had any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty, (4) a failure to give the defendant an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the trial court for a charged direct criminal contempt. The judgment and sentence must be reversed upon the authority of Moore v. State, Fla.App.1971, 24S So.2d 880. The state attempts to argue that there was a substantial compliance with rule 1.830, Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., but the record reveals: (1) a failure to recite in the judgment those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based, (2) a failure to inform the defendant prior to adjudication [145]*145of the accusation against him, (3) a failure to inquire as to whether the defendant had any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty, (4) a failure to give the defendant an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 So. 2d 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-state-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack