JOHN BLACKMON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
M.B., A MINOR CHILD AND PHYLLIS BLACKMON WHITE, MOTHER AND NEXT OF FRIEND, APPELLEES
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.
Court affirmed judgment for sexual assault and battery damages against appellant prisoner, finding that appellant's claim of trial court abuse of discretion in denying transport petition was not preserved for appellate review because counsel failed to object at trial.
A trial court's denial of a prisoner's petition for transport to trial is not preserved for appellate review when defense counsel fails to object at the commencement of or during trial.
[1] A trial court's discretionary denial of a prisoner's petition for transport to trial is not preserved for appellate review absent timely objection by counsel at the comme…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a state prisoner, was sued for sexual assault and battery by a minor child and the child's mother. Appellant filed a petition on July 25, 1…
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 Right To Be Present At Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment awarding appellees/plaintiffs below damages arising out of a sexual assault and battery. Appellant, a state prisoner, has raised two issues on this appeal, only one of which merits discussion, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s petition for an order directing the superintendent of the Apala-chee Correctional Institution to transport him to court for the final hearing then scheduled for September 27,1989. We find that this issue was not preserved for appellate review.
Appellant filed his petition on July 25, 1989, approximately two months prior to the scheduled final hearing. The petition was denied by the trial court on August 29. Subsequent thereto, pursuant to a stipulated motion for continuance, the final hearing was continued until October 25, 1989. Nothing further was said or filed by or on behalf of the appellant — other than his July 25 petition — pertaining to his desire to be transported to the final hearing. His privately retained counsel, who fully participated in the trial, made no objection at any time, either at the commencement of or during the trial, to the court’s proceeding to final hearing in the appellant’s absence. 1 Nor has he indicated that he was prejudiced by his absence from the trial.
Accordingly, the final judgment is AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ght, 439 So. 2d 868, 870 (Fla.1983). I would recede, if necessary, from any contrary implication in our previous opinions, LeNeve v. Navarro, 565 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Cook v. Navarro, 611 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); or Vick v. Navarro, 567 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In my judgment, the procedure we should follow is that utilized in Goldstein v. Navarro, 590 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). To carry Goldstein a step further, I would treat a habeas corpus petition sought under these circumsta…1 / 3