STANLEY GARRETT, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIELLE PRATT, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2013-12-20
No. 5D13-3101
SAWAYA, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
128 So. 3d 928 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2013) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that an incarcerated party has a right to be heard in civil matters and was denied this right when not allowed to appear telephonically.

Facts & Procedural History

An incarcerated inmate filed a motion to dissolve a domestic violence injunction and requested to appear telephonically. The trial court denied his mo…

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.

Topics
Right To Be Heard Domestic Violence Injunction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Garrett, an inmate in the Florida correctional system, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to modify or dissolve a domestic violence injunction. Because Garrett was denied an opportunity to appear telephonieally, we reverse for a new hearing.

After Garrett filed his motion to modify or dissolve the domestic violence injunction entered against him, he filed a motion, asking the trial court to allow him to appear telephonieally. Although the trial court never ruled on the motion, the Clerk’s notice of hearing noted Garrett would appear telephonieally. When Garrett failed to call in for the scheduled hearing, the trial court denied his motion.

An incarcerated party has a right to be heard in civil matters if the party has brought to the court’s attention his or her desire to appear personally or telephoni-cally. Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Here, Garrett brought the matter to the court’s attention. By rule, the Department of Corrections requires institutional staff to place *929direct calls to the court when an inmate is required to participate in a telephone hearing. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-602.205(8)(b). That did not occur here. As a result, Garrett was denied the opportunity to appear.

For these reasons, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. In doing so, we express no opinion on the merit of Garrett’s motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Havenner v. Debora Hutchinson, 162 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
    …n incarcerated party has a right to be heard in civil matters if the party has brought to the court’s attention his or her desire to appear personally or telephonically.” Butler v. Norton, 158 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citing Garrett v. Pratt, 128 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); (Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008))). When the incarcerated party cannot make a personal appearance in a civil matter, the judge should still allow the hearing to be held with the incar [*1114] cerated…
  • Butler v. Shakeria Norton, 158 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
    …circumstances, leaving no choice but to deny the motion. “An incarcerated party has a right to be heard in civil matters if the party has brought to the court’s attention his or her desire to appear personally or telephonically.” Garrett v. Pratt, 128 So. 3d 928, 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). “When a party is incarcerated and cannot physically appear in a civil matter, the trial court normally should grant a request to hold necessary hearings b…
  • Potchen v. Potchen, 200 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
    …al home and retrieve her possessions. Although the order seems appropriate, Appellant is correct that he was denied due process when the lower court failed to act on his request to appear by telephone from prison. See, [*179] e.g., Garrett v. Pratt, 128 So. 3d 928, 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“An incarcerated party has a right to be heard in civil matters if the party has brought to the court’s attention his or her desire to appear personally or telephonically.”); Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399, 401-02 (Fla.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw