876 So. 2d 24 - Garrett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 requires the trial judge to inform the defendant of the accusation of criminal contempt and inquire whether the defendant has cause to show why he should not be held in contempt and sentenced. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830. Rule 3.830 also requires the trial judge to give the defendant the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances before the sentencing. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.830.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Searcy v. State · Telfair v. State

2. “1. Direct criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court. 2. The judgment of guilt for contempt shall include a recital of those facts upon which the adjudication of guilt is based. 3. Prior to the adjudication of guilt, the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against him or her and inquire as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court and sentenced therefor. 4. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances [before sentencing], 5. The judgment shall be signed by the judge and entered of record. 6. The sentence shall be pronounced in open court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Woodson v. State

3. “Strict compliance with rule 3.830 is necessary to safeguard procedural due process. Berman v. State, 751 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cook v. State, 636 So.2d 895, 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). In O’Neal v. State, 501 So.2d 98, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), this court determined that merely asking the defendant if he wished to explain his behavior was insufficient to meet the requirement that the defendant be given an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. In Marshall v. State, 764 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), we cited O’Neal , and again reversed an order of direct criminal contempt because the judge “failed to give appellant an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 So. 3d 503 - T.J.L. v. State