Raimondo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Raimondo v. State

652 So. 2d 1269, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3651, 1995 WL 170144

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 1995

DocketNo. 93-00866

StatusPublished

This text of 652 So. 2d 1269 (Raimondo 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

Raimondo v. State, 652 So. 2d 1269, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3651, 1995 WL 170144 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Michael J. Raimondo, Jr., challenges his judgment and sentence for [1270]*1270indirect criminal contempt based on a violation of an injunction for protection issued pursuant to section 784.046, Florida Statutes (1991). Raimondo raises five points on appeal. We find merit in only one. As Raim-ondo argues, and the state concedes, the trial court erred by failing to recite, either orally or in writing, the facts constituting the contempt as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(f). See Bryant v. State, 637 So.2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for entry of a corrected judgment. In all other respects, we affirm.

BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Michael J. Raimondo, Jr., challenges his judgment and sentence for [1270]*1270indirect criminal contempt based on a violation of an injunction for protection issued pursuant to section 784.046, Florida Statutes (1991). Raimondo raises five points on appeal. We find merit in only one. As Raim-ondo argues, and the state concedes, the trial court erred by failing to recite, either orally or in writing, the facts constituting the contempt as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(f). See Bryant v. State, 637 So.2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for entry of a corrected judgment. In all other respects, we affirm.

BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 So. 2d 1269, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3651, 1995 WL 170144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raimondo-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack