Scott v. State
| Decision Date | 02 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-03441,91-03441 |
| Citation | 618 So.2d 1386 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D876 Jacob SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Elaine L. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hollywood, for appellee.
Jacob Scott challenges his felony conviction and sentence because the trial judge conducted his plea and sentencing proceedings through the use of closed circuit television. We affirm the conviction and the sentence. We are concerned that the waiver signed by Mr. Scott may not be adequate to waive his presence at sentencing. In this case, however, we conclude that any error is harmless.
Jacob Scott was charged with possession of contraband in a penal institution, a third-degree felony. Sec. 944.47(1)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991). The information alleges that he possessed United States currency while an inmate in the DeSoto Correctional Institution. The state attorney filed a notice of intention to seek an enhanced penalty because Mr. Scott was a habitual offender.
On July 19, 1991, Mr. Scott signed a plea agreement, in which he agreed to plead guilty or no contest to this charge in exchange for a two-year sentence, consecutive to the sentence he was already serving. He was represented by counsel at that time.
On July 29, 1991, he signed a waiver form permitting a plea via video hookup between the court and the jail. 1 On that The Fourth District has ruled that it is reversible error to conduct a plea hearing or a sentencing hearing by means of closed circuit television. Seymour v. State, 582 So.2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Jacobs v. State, 567 So.2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The Fourth District, however, has also held that a defendant may voluntarily waive his right to be present at his sentencing. Williams v. State, 578 So.2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Further, the Florida Supreme Court has held repeatedly that a defendant may waive his presence at a critical stage of the prosecution. See Amazon v. State, 487 So.2d 8 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 914, 107 S.Ct. 314, 93 L.Ed.2d 288 (1986).
day, he entered his plea and was sentenced. We do not have a videotape copy of that hearing. The record, however, contains a standard transcript of the hearing. Mr. Scott's attorney was present. Mr. Scott admits that his attorney was at the jail with him during the sentencing hearing. The trial judge placed Mr. Scott under oath and conducted a typical sentencing hearing. Mr. Scott pleaded no contest and received the negotiated sentence. The state withdrew its request for habitualization, and Mr. Scott received precisely the sentence that he and his attorney had negotiated. No one made any contemporaneous objection to any procedural or substantive aspect of this hearing.
Mr. Scott has never suggested that his waiver of the right to attend the plea hearing was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Thus, his plea was correctly accepted in this videotaped, closed circuit television proceeding.
Although neither side raised the issue, we note that the written waiver did not expressly extend to the sentencing hearing. We are concerned that such a written waiver may be inadequate and could lead to reversible error. In this case, however, we decline to hold that any infirmity in the written waiver was per se error and conclude that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case is distinguishable from Jacobs and Seymour. In each of those cases, the defendant did not have his attorney at his side during the sentencing. Mr. Scott and his attorney were together in the prison facility during his sentencing. Mr. Scott had the ability to directly discuss any question or concern with his attorney.
Without more information in the record, we cannot declare that this procedure was necessarily erroneous. Although the defendant was not physically present in the public courtroom when his sentence was announced, the judge did announce his sentence in a public courtroom. We have no reason to assume that the audio-video hookup prevented the defendant and his counsel from fully and adequately participating in that public hearing. The record indicates that the judge could and did communicate with the defendant and his attorney. No one suggests that the defendant lacked a satisfactory ability to communicate with the judge and other participants in the courtroom. For constitutional purposes, this audio-video hookup may well be the legal equivalent of physical presence. See, e.g., Guinan v. State, 769 S.W.2d 427 (Mo.) (en banc ) (), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 900, 110 S.Ct. 259, 107 L.Ed.2d 208 (1989). Although we are quite concerned that this procedure may be insufficient to fulfill the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700(b), on this limited record and without a preserved issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carmichael v. State
...of his client's newly announced right. On the other hand, I cannot conclude that the Coney issue is a per se error. See Scott v. State, 618 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (defendant's presence by video at arraignment is not per se error). Unlike a Neil [ 14] issue where a jury either include......
-
State v. Peters, 99-1940-CR.
...of appeals that noted that "an audio-video hookup may well be the legal equivalent of physical presence."13Scott v. Florida, 618 So. 2d 1386, 1388 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993). Absent any substantiated allegations of unfairness, we are not persuaded that simply appearing live via closed-circu......
-
Hill v. State
...of his client's newly announced right. On the other hand, I cannot conclude that the Coney issue is a per se error. See Scott v. State, 618 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (defendant's presence by video at arraignment is not per se error). Unlike a Neil 2 issue where a jury either includes so......
-
Mansfield v. State
...did not address sentencing. We have recently addressed this same issue based on a waiver containing the same language. Scott v. State, 618 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The facts in Scott and in this case are very similar. Both Scott and Mansfield had attorneys present during the videotape......
-
Efficiency and cost: the impact of videoconferenced hearings on bail decisions.
...(69) Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2002). (70) United States v. Algere, 457 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D. La. 2005). (71) Scott v. State, 618 So.2d 1386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. (72) See, e.g., United States v. Lawrence, 248 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2001); United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228 (5th C......
-
First appearance: do much to do, so little time.
...a defendant's attorney still had to be physically present alongside the defendant in order for a plea to be valid. Scott v. State, 618 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1993). It is unclear whether this will have an effect on Judge Grube's Mark F. Lewis has been an assistant state attorney for th......
-
Pleading guilty and video teleconference: is a defendant constitutionally "present" when pleading guilty by video teleconference?
...and his or her attorney consult through video); Jacobs v. Florida, 567 So.2d 16 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990). Cf. Scott v. Florida, 618 So.2d 1386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (holding defendant's due process rights not violated when plea of guilty entered via video after making a knowing, volu......