From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 12, 1971
253 So. 2d 144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

Opinion

No. 71-177.

October 12, 1971.

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Ellen J. Morphonios, J.

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.


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, 245 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.


Summaries of

Berman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 12, 1971
253 So. 2d 144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)
Case details for

Berman v. State

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD BERMAN, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 12, 1971

Citations

253 So. 2d 144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

Citing Cases

Speller v. State

As we stated in Manning v. State, Rule 3.830, CrPR (then numbered 1.830), requires: (Fla.App.2d 1970), 234…

O'Neal v. State

In sum, the trial court's failure to comply with Rule 3.830's procedural directives mandates that O'Neal's…