Garber v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Garber v. State

335 So. 2d 609, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13924

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 30, 1976

DocketNo. 75-762

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 335 So. 2d 609 (Garber 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

Garber v. State, 335 So. 2d 609, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13924 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM,

Appellant attorney was held in direct criminal contempt for conduct which occurred during the criminal trial of his client. We reverse.

[610]*610The 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.

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

PER CURIAM,

Appellant attorney was held in direct criminal contempt for conduct which occurred during the criminal trial of his client. We reverse.

[610]*610The 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

335 So. 2d 609, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garber-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack