Barnhill v. State, 438 So. 2d 175

SHIVERS, Judge.

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.

Case Details

Case Name: Barnhill v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Sep 22, 1983

Citations: 438 So. 2d 175; 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21807; No. AQ-330

Docket Number: No. AQ-330

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.