GIANNA SHEINHEIT, APPELLANT,
v.
CARLOS CUENCA, 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.
The court held that the trial court violated the appellant's due process rights by granting her time to obtain new counsel while simultaneously denying a continuance, forcing her to proceed pro se.
[1] A trial court violates a party's due process rights by granting them time to obtain new counsel while simultaneously requiring them to proceed pro se at a hearing where c…
[2] The discretion of a trial court to grant or deny a continuance cannot be exercised in a manner that denies a party the basic tenets of due process.
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 intelligenceThe trial court granted the appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw and gave the appellant twenty days to obtain new counsel. However, the trial cour…
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 Motion To Withdraw cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gianna Sheinheit seeks to reverse a final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence entered against her. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On May 14, 2002, Carlos Cuenca filed for an injunction for protection against repeat violence against his neighbor, She-inheit. A final hearing was set for July 18, 2002. On July 8, 2002, Shéinheit’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and on July 15, 2002, filed a motion for continuance. On July 16, 2002, the trial court granted the motion to withdraw and gave Sheinheit twenty days to obtain new counsel. Notwithstanding that she was granted twenty days to obtain representation, the trial court did not grant a continuance * and the hearing took place as scheduled. Ultimately, the trial court entered a final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence and referred Sheinheit to the Advocate Program for a mental health evaluation. Sheinheit appeals, arguing that the trial court violated her due process rights by giving her twenty days to hire an attorney while at the same time forcing her to proceed pro se at a hearing in which all of the issues that required the assistance of an attorney were to be decided. We agree.
“[T]he opportunity to be represented by counsel in both civil and criminal proceedings has been equated with due process.” Times Publ’g Co. v. Burke, 375 So. 2d 297, 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (citing Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932)). Although the discretion to grant a continuance rests with the trial court, “that discretion cannot be used to deny a party the basic tenets of due process.” Cervieri v. Cervieri, 814 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The inescapable conclusion is that this is precisely what happened here, especially when considering that Sheinheit’s mental well-being was at issue.
Accordingly, the final judgment of injunction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new hearing.
*
It appears that the trial court never actually ruled on the motion for continuance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gervaris Montez Leaphart v. Chavondra Briann James, 185 So. 3d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…thout counsel at the hearing because his counsel could not appear due to previously scheduled depositions in a criminal case in another county. Leaphart argues on appeal that he was denied a right to a full and fair hearing. In Sheinheit v. Cuenca, 840 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), the Third District held that the trial court violated the respondent’s right to due process when it effectively denied her a continuance in order to obtain counsel to represent her at the hearing on a petition for injunction for…
-
Fraya Sandoval Rodriguez v. German Luis Ortega Gonzalez (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Ozie Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1932)
- Times Publ'g Co. & Jane Baumann v. The Honorable Charles W. Burke, 375 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Cervieri v. Cervieri, 814 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)