JAMES CARLTON CONNER, APPELLANT,
v.
BRENDA DARLENE CONNER, APPELLEE
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.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the appellate court reversed a final judgment entered against an incarcerated husband who was denied transportation to the final hearing and whose continuance request was denied. The court held that a trial judge must consider specific factors and alternatives before proceeding without an inmate's physical presence.
A trial court may not exercise its discretion to deny an inmate's transportation to a civil proceeding without first considering specified factors including escape risk, case disposition needs, costs, inconvenience, security, nature of the hearing, and Department of Corrections policies. Additionally, the trial court must consider alternatives such as telephone hearings or depositions before denying the inmate's physical presence.
[1] A trial court may not proceed to a final hearing in a civil case without considering specific factors when a party is incarcerated and unable to attend.
[2] A trial court's discretion to deny an incarcerated party transportation to a civil hearing is limited and requires consideration of factors such as escape risk, case disp…
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“The husband's "failure or inability to appear at the final hearing in this cause because of his incarceration in the Florida State Prison System is no bar to proceeding to final hearing in this case." We cannot agree.”
The court rejected the trial court's blanket statement that incarceration automatically bars appearance and establishes the core legal issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Conner was incarcerated in the Florida State Prison System at the time of his divorce proceedings. On August 8, 1990, he filed motions requestin…
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
The former husband, appellant James Conner, appeals a final judgment of dissolution, contending that the trial court erred in entering the judgment without either providing him with transportation to the hearing from his place of incarceration, or granting him a six-week continuance until a law library was established in the prison where he was housed. We reverse and remand for further consistent proceedings.
On August 8, 1990, the former husband filed motions to be afforded transportation to the final hearing and to extend the time of the final hearing to November 7, 1990. In the final judgment entered on September 12, 1990, the trial court stated that the husband’s “failure or inability to appear at the final hearing in this cause because of his incarceration in the Florida State Prison System is no bar to proceeding to final hearing in this case.” We cannot agree. The court’s blanket statement does not conform to existing case law on the subject. Although a trial judge may determine not to have an inmate transported for attendance at a civil proceeding, his discretion to so act may not be exercised unless he has considered such factors as the risk and danger of escape; the need for expedited disposition of the case; costs to the state and defense; inconvenience to the state, defense, and court; security precautions; the availability of transportation without court order; the nature of the hearing; the recommendations, policies, and standard procedures of the Department of Corrections; whether oral argument is generally accorded others without motion; the impact of court-ordered transportation and lodging on the state and sheriff; and any other relevant factors.
Brown v. Sheriff of Broward County Jail, 502 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
Moreover, as alternatives to ordering an inmate’s physical presence at a proceeding, the trial court may properly consider conducting the hearing by telephone, or permitting the taking of the inmate’s deposition pursuant to the various methods afforded by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.1991).
Because there is no transcript of the proceeding below, this court cannot determine whether the trial court considered the factors listed in Brown or any of the alternatives to the inmate’s actual attendance, as recommended in Gosby. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to consider such factors, or any of the authorized alternatives to his physical presence.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waugh v. Caren Waugh, 679 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…. 4th DCA 1987). “Moreover, as alternatives to ordering an inmate’s physical presence at a proceeding, the trial court may properly consider conducting the hearing by telephone, or permitting the taking of the inmate’s deposition_” Conner v. Conner, 590 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The record before us does not indicate that the trial court gave any consideration to the factors which should be considered in deciding whether to order an inmate transported to a civil hearing or whether the trial court consi…
-
Johnson v. Shakira Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…by telephone). A motion for an order requiring transport to the final hearing in person would also, unless granted in full, have obligated the trial court to consider alternatives to appellant’s physical presence at the hearing. In Conner v. Conner, 590 So. 2d 513, 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), for example, we reversed a final judgment of dissolution because the trial court denied an incarcerated husband’s motion for a transport order without indicating which factors, if any, it had considered in denying the motio…
-
Adkins v. Winkler, 592 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…make any findings regarding appellant’s inability to be present, it should be reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court with directions that it specifically address the issue of appellant’s inability to appear. See, e.g., Conner v. Conner, 590 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, unlike the above cases, appellant never made any motion or request to the trial court to transport him to the trial. Absent such a request, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering ap…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1991)
- Brown v. Sheriff OF Broward Cnty. Jail, 502 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)