L.T.G., A JUVENILE,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
L.T.G., a juvenile, appealed his adjudication of delinquency after appearing remotely via Zoom during his adjudicatory hearing and experiencing multiple disconnections. The court held that L.T.G. did not voluntarily waive his constitutional right to be physically present, and reversed the adjudication for a new hearing.
The court held that L.T.G. did not voluntarily absent himself from the proceedings and did not make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to be physically present. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion for mistrial.
[1] A juvenile is required to be physically present at all hearings held under the juvenile rules, absent a waiver of the right to be present or specific court findings regar…
[2] A juvenile's waiver of the right to be physically present at hearings must be personal and cannot be made by the juvenile's counsel.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an "accused child is required to be physically present at all hearings held under the juvenile rules, except when there has been a waiver of the right to be present or the court makes specific findings regarding the child's physical or mental condition that precludes physical presence."”
Establishes the baseline constitutional requirement for a juvenile's physical presence at adjudicatory hearings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL.T.G. appeared remotely through his cell phone via Zoom videoconferencing during a hybrid adjudicatory hearing, while the trial judge, witnesses, and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Right To Be Present cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J.
L.T.G., the respondent below, challenges an adjudication of delinquency rendered following a hybrid adjudicatory hearing. During the hearing, L.T.G. appeared remotely through his cell phone via the Zoom videoconferencing platform, while the trial judge, witnesses, and attorneys were physically present in the courtroom.
On appeal, L.T.G. contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after he was disconnected numerous times throughout the proceedings.1 It is axiomatic an “accused child is required to be physically present at all hearings held under the juvenile rules, except when there has been a waiver of the right to be present or the court makes specific findings regarding the child’s physical or mental condition that precludes physical presence.” R.R. v. Portesy, 629 So. 2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (footnote omitted); see also Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.255(b)(1); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8100(c). “This waiver must be personal, not one by the juvenile’s counsel.” S.M. v. State, 138 So. 3d 1156, 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Concluding L.T.G. did not voluntarily absent himself from the proceedings and his conduct did not amount to a “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” waiver of his right to be present, we reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing. M.W.G. v. State, 945 So. 2d 597, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- M.W.G. v. State, 945 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Papageorge v. State, 710 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- T.A.S. v. State, 892 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- S.M. v. State, 138 So. 3d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)