Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

795 So. 2d 227

Docket No. 4D01-2056.

Stout v. State

Michael STOUT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 26, 2001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-09-26

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 2016

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.180(a)(3) and 3.220(p) provide that a defendant's presence at a pretrial conference may be waived in writing. On June 18, 1997, a waiver of appearance signed by petitioner was filed by her attorney. The Notice of Docket Sounding does not inform the petitioner that this pretrial proceeding requires her personal appearance, that her presence may not be waived and that she could not appear through counsel. Accordingly, there appears to be no legal basis for issuance of the capias and it is hereby quashed.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 822 So. 2d 595 - Cruz v. State

“[t]he defendant shall be present unless the defendant waives this in writing”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Walters v. State

Relies on Lynch v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-09-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender, and Debra A. Bookout, Assistant Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Fisher Zibura, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4This case presents nearly the same factual situation as Lynch v. State,736 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which counsel *228 for Petitioner cited to the trial court below to no effect. As in Lynch, the instant trial court rejected Petitioner's signed, written waiver of appearance for a pretrial status conference in his criminal prosecution, instead requiring his personal appearance. In the instant case, Judge Goldstein explained that Stout's personal appearance was required because most pleas in his division were entered at status conferences. Counsel for Petitioner assured the judge that if he were able to negotiate a plea, he would advise Petitioner to attend the conference or schedule a change of plea hearing for that purpose, but if there was to be no plea, then there may be no reason to require Petitioner to miss work for every hearing and possibly jeopardize his employment. Nevertheless, Judge Goldstein would not accept the waiver and required Petitioner's personal appearance.

¶5We adopt the reasoning of the Fifth District in Lynch and also hold that the trial court's refusal to accept Petitioner's written waiver of his appearance at the upcoming status conference contravenes Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.180(a)(3) (requiring the presence of the defendant at pretrial conferences "unless waived by the defendant in writing") and 3.220(p)(1) (allowing the trial court to hold one or more pretrial conferences and stating that "[t]he defendant shall be present unless the defendant waives this in writing").

¶6As the Fifth District did in Lynch, we hereby grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to accept Petitioner's written waiver of appearance in accordance with the foregoing rules.

¶7POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

/795/so2d/227 · .json · Public domain