Case ID: so2d_253/html/0144-01.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

Bernard BERMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 71-177.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Oct. 12, 1971.
    Ginsberg & Goldman, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Legal Intern., for appellee.
    Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the trial court for a charged direct criminal contempt. The judgment and sentence must be reversed upon the authority of Moore v. State, Fla.App.1971, 24S So.2d 880. The state attempts to argue that there was a substantial compliance with rule 1.830, Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., but the record reveals: (1) a failure to recite in the judgment those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based, (2) a failure to inform the defendant prior to adjudication of the accusation against him, (3) a failure to inquire as to whether the defendant had any cause to show why he should not be adjudged guilty, (4) a failure to give the defendant an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances.

Reversed.