Marshall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marshall v. State

672 So. 2d 663, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4742, 1996 WL 230730

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1165

StatusPublished

This text of 672 So. 2d 663 (Marshall 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

Marshall v. State, 672 So. 2d 663, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4742, 1996 WL 230730 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

As the State properly concedes, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements for a judgment of guilt of contempt as prescribed by Rule 3.830, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record indicates that, prior to the adjudication of guilt, the trial court failed to inform the defendant of the accusation against him, failed to inquire as to whether he had any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt, and further failed to give him an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830; Cook v. State, 636 So.2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Peters v. State, 626 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Martinez v. State, 339 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), approved, 346 So.2d 68 (Fla.1977). Therefore, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings to allow the trial court to comply with Rule 3.830 before holding the defendant in contempt.

Reversed and remanded.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

As the State properly concedes, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements for a judgment of guilt of contempt as prescribed by Rule 3.830, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record indicates that, prior to the adjudication of guilt, the trial court failed to inform the defendant of the accusation against him, failed to inquire as to whether he had any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt, and further failed to give him an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830; Cook v. State, 636 So.2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Peters v. State, 626 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Martinez v. State, 339 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), approved, 346 So.2d 68 (Fla.1977). Therefore, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings to allow the trial court to comply with Rule 3.830 before holding the defendant in contempt.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 So. 2d 663, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4742, 1996 WL 230730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack