P.J.S., A JUVENILE,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

Fla. 3d DCA | 2022-10-26
No. 2021-1730
345 So. 3d 359 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2022) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1557
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Delinquency Proceedings Due Process

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

MILLER, J.

P.J.S., the respondent below, appeals findings of delinquency rendered after the trial court conducted a hybrid adjudicatory hearing.1 During the hearing, the trial judge appeared remotely via the Zoom videoconferencing platform, while the witnesses, appellant, and attorneys were physically present in the courtroom. One prosecutorial witness testified while masked. Relying upon the rationale advanced in our recent decisions in M.D. v. State, 345 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), J.T.B. v. State, 345 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), and K.M. v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1557 (Fla. 3d DCA July 20, 2022), we find that the due process considerations inherent in delinquency proceedings require case-specific findings of necessity in such circumstances.2

Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes
1 These cases present identical issues and were consolidated for all purposes. 2 The Florida Supreme Court has recently promulgated new amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. Underscoring the importance of considering the circumstances of each case, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.100(e)(1) now provides that “[e]videntiary proceedings must be conducted in person unless the parties agree that a proceeding should be conducted remotely or conducted in a hybrid format, or the court so orders upon good cause shown.”
2 Because the record is devoid of any particularized findings, we are constrained to reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • P.J.S. v. State, 345 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
    …oom videoconferencing platform, while the witnesses, appellant, and attorneys were physically present in the courtroom. One prosecutorial witness testified while masked. Relying upon the rationale advanced in our recent decisions in M.D. v. State, 345 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), J.T.B. v. State, 345 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), and K.M. v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1557 (Fla. 3d DCA July 20, 2022), we find that the due process considerations inherent in delinquency proceedings require case-specific fin…
  • J.D. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
  • I.P. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
    …court held a hearing on the objection, overruled the objection, but did not make case specific findings supporting the need to conduct the proceeding remotely. We reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing on the authority of M.D. v. State, 345 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022); J.T.B. v. State, 345 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022); and T.H. v. State, 349 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw