Case Name: Bernard BERMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1971-10-12
Citations: 253 So. 2d 144
Docket Number: No. 71-177
Parties: Bernard BERMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 253
Pages: 144–145

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.