From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Royster v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 28, 1996
668 So. 2d 346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 95-1179.

February 28, 1996.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County; Frank Bell, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Edward C. Hill, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


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.

JOANOS, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Royster v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 28, 1996
668 So. 2d 346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Royster v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT EARL ROYSTER, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Feb 28, 1996

Citations

668 So. 2d 346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Marshall v. State

Because the lower court failed to inquire as to whether appellant had any cause to show why he should not be…

Johnson v. State

While the rule does not require appointed counsel, Johnson himself was given no real opportunity "to present…