Raimondo v. State

652 So. 2d 1269, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3651, 1995 WL 170144
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Raimondo v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12891
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 1995·No. No. 93-00866·Published

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

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

652 So. 2d 1269 (Raimondo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bryant v. State
637 So. 2d 339 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)