McDermott v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McDermott v. State

824 So. 2d 333, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12419, 2002 WL 1972888

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 28, 2002

DocketNo. 3D02-2156

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 824 So. 2d 333 (McDermott v. State) 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

McDermott v. State, 824 So. 2d 333, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12419, 2002 WL 1972888 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Charles McDermott, seeks an emergency writ of mandamus directing the trial court to accept his written waiver of appearance and to withdraw a no bond capias warrant issued August 13, 2002.

Based on the state’s appropriate confession of error, and our own review of the record, we grant the petition for writ of mandamus, and direct the trial court to accept the petitioner’s written waiver in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180. See Stout v. State, 795 So.2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), citing Lynch v. State, 736 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Furthermore, since a defendant’s presence at a pretrial conference may be waived in writing, see Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, we find no legal basis for issuance of this capias and therefore quash the same. See Reynolds v. State, 696 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Cf. Cruz v. State, 822 So.2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(trial court can require personal presence of defendant, notwithstanding waiver, if there is good cause and defendant must be clearly advised that personal presence is required).

Petition granted; capias quashed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Charles McDermott, seeks an emergency writ of mandamus directing the trial court to accept his written waiver of appearance and to withdraw a no bond capias warrant issued August 13, 2002.

Based on the state’s appropriate confession of error, and our own review of the record, we grant the petition for writ of mandamus, and direct the trial court to accept the petitioner’s written waiver in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180. See Stout v. State, 795 So.2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), citing Lynch v. State, 736 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Furthermore, since a defendant’s presence at a pretrial conference may be waived in writing, see Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, we find no legal basis for issuance of this capias and therefore quash the same. See Reynolds v. State, 696 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Cf. Cruz v. State, 822 So.2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(trial court can require personal presence of defendant, notwithstanding waiver, if there is good cause and defendant must be clearly advised that personal presence is required).

Petition granted; capias quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 So. 2d 333, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12419, 2002 WL 1972888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdermott-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack