Case ID: so2d_595/html/0302-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Bernard DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 91-1807.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    March 24, 1992.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Barbara Arlene Fink, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and LEVY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

James Bernard Davis, the defendant, was adjudicated guilty of direct criminal contempt, pursuaht to Rule 3.830 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, for abusive language. The Court sentenced the defendant to six months imprisonment. The defendant contends that the trial court did not conduct a proper hearing, as is required by Rule 3.830, before summarily adjudicating him guilty of direct contempt of court. We agree.

Rule 3.830 requires that:
[p]rior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against him and inquire as to whether he has any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the Court and sentenced therefor. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.

The record shows that the trial court failed to follow the clear provisions of Rule 3.830. Therefore, the adjudication of contempt is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the provisions of Rule 3.830.

Reversed and remanded.