Royster v. State
668 So. 2d 346, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1731, 1996 WL 82744
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 28, 1996·No. No. 95-1179·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Appellant seeks reversal of an order of direct criminal contempt. Because the lower court failed to inquire as to whether appellant had any cause to show why he should not be adjudicated guilty of contempt and failed to give appellant an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence, as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.830, the judgment of direct criminal contempt must be REVERSED. Clark v. State, 625 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Our reversal is without prejudice to the institution of proper contempt proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Royster v. State, 668 So. 2d 346, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1731, 1996 WL 82744 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).
668 So. 2d 346 (Royster v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Johnson v. State
906 So. 2d 361 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Marshall v. State
764 So. 2d 908 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)