Hibbert v. State, 3D05-1045.
| Decision Date | 10 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D05-1045.,3D05-1045. |
| Citation | 929 So.2d 622 |
| Parties | George C. HIBBERT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Godfrey, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and William J. Selinger, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and FLETCHER, JJ.
George Hibbert ("Hibbert"), appeals his judgment and sentence for direct criminal contempt. We reverse.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 requires the trial judge to inform the defendant of the accusation of criminal contempt and inquire whether the defendant has cause to show why he should not be held in contempt and sentenced. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830. Rule 3.830 also requires the trial judge to give the defendant the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances before the sentencing. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830.
Here, the trial judge asked Hibbert to show cause why he should not be held in direct criminal contempt. However, the trial judge did not give Hibbert an opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances or to discuss why the trial judge should or should not impose a particular sentence. Thus, the trial judge failed to follow the procedural requirements, which is fundamental error. See Garrett v. State, 876 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and sentence for proper criminal contempt proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Searcy v. State
...present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances." Id.; see Bonet v. State, 937 So.2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hibbert v. State, 929 So.2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Garrett, 876 So.2d at Merely asking the defendant if he wishes to explain his behavior does not meet the procedural requi......
-
Wiggs v. State, 5D07-3279.
...the defendant to show cause why he should not be held in direct criminal contempt, also constitutes fundamental error. Hibbert v. State, 929 So.2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The limited record in this present appeal reflects that the Appellant was representing a client on a criminal misdemeano......
-
Castaneda v. State
...scrupulously follow the rule constituted fundamental error. Bonet v. State, 937 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hibbert v. State, 929 So.2d 622, 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Garrett v. State, 876 So.2d 24, 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). We therefore reverse Castaneda's sentence for direct criminal c......
-
Haynes v. State
...permit Appellant to present evidence in mitigation, as authorized by rule 3.830. This is fundamental error. See, e.g., Hibbert v. State, 929 So.2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). We believe that the proper remedy under the facts of this case is reversal of the sentence and remand for a new sentenci......