Wesley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wesley v. State

849 So. 2d 426, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10373, 2003 WL 21554485

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 11, 2003·No. No. 1D02-1816·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

BARFIELD, J.

The state concedes that the contempt proceedings below did not comply with the due process provisions incorporated in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, and that this constituted fundamental error. The appellant’s argument that the adjudication of contempt was not supported by the record evidence was not preserved for appellate review. The judgment and sentence are REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with rule 3.840, see Paletti v. State, 727 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, J.

The state concedes that the contempt proceedings below did not comply with the due process provisions incorporated in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, and that this constituted fundamental error. The appellant’s argument that the adjudication of contempt was not supported by the record evidence was not preserved for appellate review. The judgment and sentence are REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with rule 3.840, see Paletti v. State, 727 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Wesley v. State, 849 So. 2d 426, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10373, 2003 WL 21554485 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

849 So. 2d 426 (Wesley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related