From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barnhill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Sep 22, 1983
438 So. 2d 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

No. AQ-330.

September 22, 1983.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Escambia County, Jack H. Greenhut, J.

Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Andrew Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.


We affirm appellant's conviction for indirect criminal contempt. The petition for a rule to show cause filed by the State Attorney was sufficient to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.840(a)(1), Fla.R. Crim.P. See Vernell v. State, 212 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Moreover, the requirements of Rule 3.840(a)(6) were met in this case by the trial judge orally stating on the record the underlying facts constituting the contempt. See generally Adams v. State, 376 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) and Phipps v. State, 352 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barnhill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Sep 22, 1983
438 So. 2d 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

Barnhill v. State

Case Details

Full title:KEITH BARNHILL, A/K/A DONALD RAY BARNHILL, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Sep 22, 1983

Citations

438 So. 2d 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Citing Cases

Neal v. State

The requirement that the order recite the facts constituting the contempt is satisfied when the trial judge…

Gidden v. State

In the instant case, both purposes were accomplished by the trial court's recitation of its findings on the…