Garrett v. Pratt

128 So. 3d 928, 2013 WL 6687747, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20105
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 20, 2013
DocketNo. 5D13-3101
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 128 So. 3d 928 (Garrett v. Pratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Garrett v. Pratt, 128 So. 3d 928, 2013 WL 6687747, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20105 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

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 [929]*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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Potchen v. Potchen
200 So. 3d 178 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Jerry W. Havenner v. Debora Hutchinson
162 So. 3d 1113 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Butler v. Norton
158 So. 3d 750 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 So. 3d 928, 2013 WL 6687747, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-pratt-fladistctapp-2013.