Sikorski v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sikorski v. State

687 So. 2d 46, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 179, 1997 WL 20724

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 22, 1997·No. No. 95-02624·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Sikorski challenges his adjudication for direct criminal contempt. He contends, and the state agrees, that the trial court did not follow the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. The trial court failed to provide a written judgment of guilt reciting the facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based as required by rule 3.830. See Spivey v. State, 616 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Therefore, we reverse Sikorski’s direct criminal contempt order and remand the case with directions that the trial court render a judgment in compliance with rule 3.830.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

FRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Sikorski challenges his adjudication for direct criminal contempt. He contends, and the state agrees, that the trial court did not follow the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. The trial court failed to provide a written judgment of guilt reciting the facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based as required by rule 3.830. See Spivey v. State, 616 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Therefore, we reverse Sikorski’s direct criminal contempt order and remand the case with directions that the trial court render a judgment in compliance with rule 3.830.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

FRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Sikorski v. State, 687 So. 2d 46, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 179, 1997 WL 20724 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

687 So. 2d 46 (Sikorski v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related