L.T.G., A JUVENILE v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 3, 2023.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1479
Lower Tribunal No. 22-277
________________
L.T.G., A Juvenile,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dawn
Denaro, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
MILLER, J.
L.T.G., the respondent below, challenges an adjudication of
delinquency rendered following a hybrid adjudicatory hearing. During the
hearing, L.T.G. appeared remotely through his cell phone via the Zoom
videoconferencing platform, while the trial judge, witnesses, and attorneys
were physically present in the courtroom. On appeal, L.T.G. contends the
trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after he was disconnected
numerous times throughout the proceedings. 1 It is axiomatic an “accused
child is required to be physically present at all hearings held under the
juvenile rules, except when there has been a waiver of the right to be present
or the court makes specific findings regarding the child’s physical or mental
condition that precludes physical presence.” R.R. v. Portesy, 629 So. 2d
1059, 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (footnote omitted); see also Fla. R. Juv. P.
8.255(b)(1); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8100(c). “This waiver must be personal, not one
by the juvenile’s counsel.” S.M. v. State, 138 So. 3d 1156, 1160 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2014). Concluding L.T.G. did not voluntarily absent himself from the
proceedings and his conduct did not amount to a “knowing, intelligent, and
1
We summarily reject the contention that the motion for mistrial was
unpreserved. See T.A.S. v. State, 892 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA
2005) (quoting Papageorge v. State, 710 So. 2d 53, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998))
(noting a juvenile has “the constitutional right to be present at the stages of
. . . trial where fundamental fairness might be thwarted by his [or her]
absence”).
2
voluntary” waiver of his right to be present, we reverse and remand for a new
adjudicatory hearing. M.W.G. v. State, 945 So. 2d 597, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA
2006).
Reversed and remanded.
3