Peretz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peretz v. State

710 So. 2d 754, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5962, 1998 WL 264093

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2697

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 710 So. 2d 754 (Peretz 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

Peretz v. State, 710 So. 2d 754, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5962, 1998 WL 264093 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. Because a transcript of this involuntary commitment hearing cannot be produced due to technological failings of the recording equipment at the hearing, and neither the trial court nor the attorneys are able to reconstruct the record of proceedings, a new hearing must be conducted. See Delap v. State, 350 So.2d 462, 463 (Fla.1977). The state has conceded that a remand is appropriate for that purpose.

GUNTHER, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. Because a transcript of this involuntary commitment hearing cannot be produced due to technological failings of the recording equipment at the hearing, and neither the trial court nor the attorneys are able to reconstruct the record of proceedings, a new hearing must be conducted. See Delap v. State, 350 So.2d 462, 463 (Fla.1977). The state has conceded that a remand is appropriate for that purpose.

GUNTHER, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 So. 2d 754, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5962, 1998 WL 264093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peretz-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack