P.J.S., A JUVENILE v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 26, 2022
• Docket: 21-1730
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 26, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D21-1729 & 3D21-1730 Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-1262, 20-1246 ________________

P.J.S., A Juvenile, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dawn Denaro, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Kayla Heather McNab, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

MILLER, J. P.J.S., the respondent below, appeals findings of delinquency

rendered after the trial court conducted a hybrid adjudicatory hearing. 1

During the hearing, the trial judge appeared remotely via the Zoom

videoconferencing platform, while the witnesses, appellant, and attorneys

were physically present in the courtroom. One prosecutorial witness testified

while masked. Relying upon the rationale advanced in our recent decisions

in M.D. v. State, 345 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), J.T.B. v. State, 345 So.

3d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), and K.M. v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1557 (Fla.

3d DCA July 20, 2022), we find that the due process considerations inherent

in delinquency proceedings require case-specific findings of necessity in

such circumstances. 2 Because the record is devoid of any particularized

findings, we are constrained to reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory

hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

1 These cases present identical issues and were consolidated for all purposes. 2 The Florida Supreme Court has recently promulgated new amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. Underscoring the importance of considering the circumstances of each case, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.100(e)(1) now provides that “[e]videntiary proceedings must be conducted in person unless the parties agree that a proceeding should be conducted remotely or conducted in a hybrid format, or the court so orders upon good cause shown.”