Case Name: Milton GIDDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-01-24
Citations: 593 So. 2d 294
Docket Number: No. 90-2309
Parties: Milton GIDDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COBB, COWART, HARRIS, PETERSON, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 593
Pages: 294–296

Head Matter:
Milton GIDDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 90-2309.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 24, 1992.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lyle Hitchens, Asst. Public Defender, Day-tona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James N. Charles, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
GOSHORN, Chief Judge.
Gidden appeals his conviction for resisting an officer with violence. He also appeals his conviction for indirect criminal contempt. We affirm both convictions, finding that only Gidden's argument concerning his conviction for criminal contempt merits discussion. We have voted to consider this case en banc in order to reconsider our decisions in Alexander v. State, 576 So.2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) and White v. Buck, 505 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
The offense of indirect criminal contempt is governed by Rule 3.840, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 3.840(a)(6) provides in pertinent part:
There should be included in a judgment of guilty a recital of the facts constituting the contempt of which the defendant has been found and adjudicated guilty. [Emphasis added].
In White v. Buck, supra, this court held that a trial court is required to set forth the facts upon which its order of indirect criminal contempt is based in order "to advise the accused and to permit meaningful appellate review." 505 So.2d at 37. See also Alexander v. State, supra. In the instant case, both purposes were accomplished by the trial court's recitation of its findings on the record. This was the rationale for the First District's affirmance of a similar contempt order in Barnhill v. State, 438 So.2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). As promulgated by the supreme court, Rule 3.840(a)(6) provides only that a court "should" include a finding of facts in its order. Where, as here, sufficient oral findings are made on the record, the purpose of the rule is fulfilled and written findings are discretionary, not mandatory.
Neither White v. Buck nor Alexander v. State considered oral findings on the record and therefore are distinguishable from the case at bar. However, we recede from the language of those decisions to the extent they may be read to require written findings in a judgment of indirect criminal contempt where the judge's findings on the record serve to advise the defendant of the basis for the judgment and permit meaningful appellate review.
We certify conflict with Hofeling v. Hofeling, 546 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
AFFIRMED.
COBB, COWART, HARRIS, PETERSON, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
DAUKSCH, J., dissents without opinion.
W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.
. In contrast, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 governing direct criminal contempt provides "The judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital of those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based." (Emphasis added). See Wells v. State, 487 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA), cause dismissed, 491 So.2d 281 (Fla.1986).