Pearson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pearson v. State

34 So. 3d 118, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5042, 2010 WL 1508179

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 16, 2010

DocketNo. 3D10-901

StatusPublished

This text of 34 So. 3d 118 (Pearson 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

Pearson v. State, 34 So. 3d 118, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5042, 2010 WL 1508179 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this record, the defendant was in direct criminal contempt of the trial court because of his refusal to obey a clear, unambiguous directive in open court. We therefore affirm the trial judge’s order. Based on the circumstances of this case, including that the intended purpose of the contempt was achieved, the defendant was ultimately acquitted of the charges after serving substantial time in jail prior to trial, and he has now served over one month incarceration post-trial on the contempt charge, we are of the opinion that the defendant’s immediate release with credit for time served is appropriate. We trust that the trial court will immediately mitigate the sentence accordingly.

This opinion shall take effect immediately notwithstanding the filing of any motion for rehearing.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On this record, the defendant was in direct criminal contempt of the trial court because of his refusal to obey a clear, unambiguous directive in open court. We therefore affirm the trial judge’s order. Based on the circumstances of this case, including that the intended purpose of the contempt was achieved, the defendant was ultimately acquitted of the charges after serving substantial time in jail prior to trial, and he has now served over one month incarceration post-trial on the contempt charge, we are of the opinion that the defendant’s immediate release with credit for time served is appropriate. We trust that the trial court will immediately mitigate the sentence accordingly.

This opinion shall take effect immediately notwithstanding the filing of any motion for rehearing.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 So. 3d 118, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5042, 2010 WL 1508179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.