Kendrick v. Kendrick

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kendrick v. Kendrick

876 So. 2d 730, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10145, 2004 WL 1531753

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 2004

DocketNos. 1D03-4219, 1D03-4782

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 876 So. 2d 730 (Kendrick v. Kendrick) 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

Kendrick v. Kendrick, 876 So. 2d 730, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10145, 2004 WL 1531753 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul Kendrick appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and an order on attorneys’ fees, which order included an adjudication of direct criminal contempt. These appeals have been consolidated. Mr. Kendrick raises several challenges to the final judgment on dissolution of marriage. We find no merit to any of these claims. Therefore, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage is affirmed.

Mr. Kendrick also raises challenges to the order on attorneys’ fees, one of which is meritorious. Mr. Kendrick asserts that the trial court erred by adjudicating him guilty of direct criminal contempt without first affording him an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence as is required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. With this one point, we agree. Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction for direct criminal contempt is reversed without prejudice to the institution of proper contempt proceedings. See Fla. [731]*731R.Crim. P. 3.830. See also, e.g., Garrett v. State, 876 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

BOOTH, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Paul Kendrick appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and an order on attorneys’ fees, which order included an adjudication of direct criminal contempt. These appeals have been consolidated. Mr. Kendrick raises several challenges to the final judgment on dissolution of marriage. We find no merit to any of these claims. Therefore, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage is affirmed.

Mr. Kendrick also raises challenges to the order on attorneys’ fees, one of which is meritorious. Mr. Kendrick asserts that the trial court erred by adjudicating him guilty of direct criminal contempt without first affording him an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence as is required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. With this one point, we agree. Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction for direct criminal contempt is reversed without prejudice to the institution of proper contempt proceedings. See Fla. [731]*731R.Crim. P. 3.830. See also, e.g., Garrett v. State, 876 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

BOOTH, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

876 So. 2d 730, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10145, 2004 WL 1531753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendrick-v-kendrick-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack