Skip to main content

Garrett v. State

Citations

  • 876 So. 2d 24
  • 2004 WL 1091312

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that failure to comply with procedural requirements of rule 3.830 constituted fundamental error
  • confirming that \preservation of error is not required because any defect in [a Rule 3.830] contempt proceeding is fundamental error\
  • reversing contempt order because “appellant was neither informed that under the rule he could present mitigating circumstances, nor given a separate and distinct opportunity to present mitigating circumstances.”
  • merely asking defendant if he wished to explain behavior was insufficient; rather, court must inform defendant that he can present mitigating circumstances and give “a separate and distinct opportunity” for him to do so

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wolf

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.