Summary
holding defendant was not provided with sufficient notice and sufficient opportunity to present evidence with respect to accusation of criminal contempt, where record reflected merely that proceedings were held wherein trial court questioned defendant regarding his nonappearance at trial three days earlier and defendant made brief statement by way of explanation, and trial court adjudicated defendant guilty of direct criminal contempt and pronounced sentence
Summary of this case from Tejada v. StateOpinion
No. 90-1658.
February 26, 1991.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Arthur Rothenberg, J.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Monique T. Befeler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before FERGUSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.
The State confesses error with respect to the defendant's contention that the trial court failed to inform defendant of the accusation of criminal contempt and failed to afford him an opportunity to present mitigating or excusing evidence. The record reflects merely that proceedings were held wherein the trial court questioned the defendant regarding his nonappearance at trial three days earlier and defendant made a brief statement by way of explanation. The court adjudicated defendant guilty of direct criminal contempt and pronounced sentence, over defense counsel's objection that defendant was entitled to a hearing. This did not constitute sufficient notice and opportunity to present evidence. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830; see Nunes v. State, 434 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Reversed and remanded.