C.D.C. v. State
211 So. 3d 357
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile adjudicated guilty of sexual battery on a person 12 years or older; disposition hearing scheduled.
- Juvenile was not transported for the first disposition hearing; court proceeded in his absence because key witnesses (victim’s mother and DJJ rep) were only available that day.
- Defense objected; court overruled and heard testimony from the victim’s mother (who sought the harshest penalty) and the DJJ representative (who described DJJ’s recommendation).
- Court did not immediately announce disposition; a second hearing was held three days later with the juvenile present.
- At the second hearing the court rejected the DJJ recommendation, found the juvenile a danger, placed him in a high-risk residential program with post-commitment probation, and designated him a sex offender.
- Juvenile appealed, arguing violation of Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.100(a) and due process because part of the disposition evidence was taken in his absence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated the juvenile’s right to be present at a disposition hearing under Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.100(a) | Juvenile: Rule requires child’s presence at all hearings unless court finds mental/physical condition makes appearance inadvisable; he did not waive presence and no such finding was made | State: Testimony was not at a "critical stage" or, alternatively, any error was harmless | Court reversed: Rule requires presence at hearings absent express finding; no waiver or finding here, so error occurred |
| Whether the error was harmless | Juvenile: Court likely considered testimony heard in his absence when imposing a harsher disposition | State: Any error was harmless under sentencing-harmless-error standards | Court held error was not harmless because there was a reasonable possibility the absent testimony contributed to the harsher disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- S.M. v. State, 138 So.3d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (juvenile must be physically present at hearings absent personal waiver or specific court finding)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (error in sentencing is harmless only if no reasonable possibility it contributed to the sentence)