questioning the judge’s intentions for the sentence. In both cases, the defendant/appellant engaged in a verbal sparring match with the court, was found to be in contempt, and immediately reacted in a way further intended to lessen the court’s authority. We, like the Second District in B.M., hold that Appellant’s attempt to simply get the last word into the argument is sufficiently continuous with the original contempt charge such that only a single charge was appropriate. Therefore, we reverse Appellant’s second contempt charge in its entirety. Appellant’s next issue relates to the trial - court’s failure to strictly follow the procedures of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. Such a failure constitutes fundamental error. See A.W. v. State, 137 So.3d 521, 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (<HOLDING>); see also Peters v. State, 626 So.2d 1048,
holding that a defendant claiming immunity pursuant to section 7760321 florida statutes must file a motion to dismiss pursuant to florida rule of criminal procedure 3190b and requiring trial court to address the motion at a pretrial evidentiary hearing holding that when an agency fails to follow the proper procedure under the illinois administrative procedure act for the adoption of rules the rule is invalid holding that tennessee rule of civil procedure 24 is not applicable to proceedings in juvenile court holding that orders denying motions to mitigate sentence under florida rule of criminal procedure 3800c are not appealable holding a trial court commits fundamental error by failing to follow florida rule of juvenile procedure 8150 the juvenile rule equivalent of florida rule of criminal procedure 3830