RYAN JOEHNK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1997-03-10
No. 96-3470
JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
689 So. 2d 1179 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1997) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Waiver Of Right To Be Present Knowing And Intelligent Waiver

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Right To Be Present cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
WOLF, Judge.

WOLF, Judge.

Appellant challenges a final order of commitment under the Baker Act. Appellant argues that it was error to conduct his commitment hearing outside of his presence and without sufficiently determining that he had voluntarily waived his right to be present. The state argues that appellant’s lawyer waived appellant’s presence by telling the court that appellant did not wish to be present. We determine 1) that appellant has a fundamental right to be present at the commitment proceeding, see Hockensmith v. State, 524 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and Wickland v. State, 642 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); and 2) that while a defendant may waive his or her rights to be personally present and be constructively present through counsel, the court must certify through proper inquiry that the waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Jarrett v. State, 654 So. 2d 973, 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). No attempt to make an inquiry was done in the present case. We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new hearing. In light of our ruling on this issue, it is unnecessary for us to reach the other issue raised by appellant.

JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ezekiel Register v. State, 946 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
    …nt’s presence at the commitment hearing was insufficient to allow the hearing to proceed. The state asserts that this issue was not preserved for review. A patient has a .fundamental right to be present at a commitment proceeding. Joehnk v. State, 689 So. 2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). While a patient may waive his or her right to be personally present and be constructively present through counsel, a court must certify through proper inquiry that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Id. Fur…
  • Brown v. State, 953 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
    …er, we agree with the appellant on the merits and therefore remand for a new commitment hearing. A patient has a fundamental right to be present at a commitment proceeding. Register v. State, 946 So. 2d 50, 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Joehnk v. State, 689 So. 2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). [*689] A patient may waive his or her right to be personally present, but a court must certify through proper inquiry that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Register, 946 So. 2d at 50. The court below did…
  • Williams v. State, 692 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
    …es (1995). Williams argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in holding the commitment hearing outside of his presence and without establishing that he had waived his right to be personally present. We recently held in Joehnk v. State, 689 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), that in a Baker Act commitment proceeding the defendant “has a fundamental right to be present at the commitment proceeding [and] ... while a defendant may waive his or her rights to be personally present and be constructively p…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw