Bryant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bryant v. State

637 So. 2d 339, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5006, 1994 WL 207469

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 1994

DocketNo. 93-01500

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 637 So. 2d 339 (Bryant 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

Bryant v. State, 637 So. 2d 339, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5006, 1994 WL 207469 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Bryant appeals from an order of indirect criminal contempt for violating an injunction against repeat violence filed and granted pursuant to section 784.046, Florida Statutes (1991). He claims now that the original injunction was improperly issued. When this injunction was entered in 1992 it may well have been erroneous. However, Bryant did not appeal the injunction order at that time. Neither did he seek relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. Because Bryant did not appeal the original order, review of that order is barred. Because Bryant does not deny that he committed the acts constituting a violation of the injunction we affirm the finding of contempt. The trial court, however, neglected to put on the record, either orally or in writing, a factual finding of the circumstances constituting the contempt. This was error. See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.840(f). We, accordingly, remand for entry of the appropriate findings.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Bryant appeals from an order of indirect criminal contempt for violating an injunction against repeat violence filed and granted pursuant to section 784.046, Florida Statutes (1991). He claims now that the original injunction was improperly issued. When this injunction was entered in 1992 it may well have been erroneous. However, Bryant did not appeal the injunction order at that time. Neither did he seek relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. Because Bryant did not appeal the original order, review of that order is barred. Because Bryant does not deny that he committed the acts constituting a violation of the injunction we affirm the finding of contempt. The trial court, however, neglected to put on the record, either orally or in writing, a factual finding of the circumstances constituting the contempt. This was error. See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.840(f). We, accordingly, remand for entry of the appropriate findings.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 So. 2d 339, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5006, 1994 WL 207469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack