Joehnk v. State, 689 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Joehnk v. State, 689 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Register v. State, 946 So.2d 50, 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Joehnk v. State, 689 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). *689 A patient may waive his or her right to be personally present, but a court must certify through proper inquiry that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re MH 2006-000749
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Suzuki v. Yuen, 617 F.2d 173 (9th Cir.1980); Doremus v. Farrell, 407 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.Neb.1975) (“The subject [of a civil commitment proceeding] has a constitutional right to be present at the hearing unless he voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly waives it or his counsel waives it for him after a showing that he is incompetent, or the subject’s conduct is so disruptive as to require his exclusion.”); Kendall v. True, 391 F.Supp. 413, 419 (W.D.Ky.1975) (Due process requires patient’s presence “unless the right is intelligently waived by himself and counsel, or unless ... after…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Register v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Joehnk v. State, 689 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ryan JOEHNK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
96-3470.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Mar 10, 1997.
689 So. 2d 1179
Wolf.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

[*1180] Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Charlie McCoy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.

WOLF, Judge.

Appellant challenges a final order of commitment under the Baker Act. Appellant argues that it was error to conduct his commitment hearing outside of his presence and without sufficiently determining that he had voluntarily waived his right to be present. The state argues that appellant's lawyer waived appellant's presence by telling the court that appellant did not wish to be present. We determine 1) that appellant has a fundamental right to be present at the commitment proceeding, see Hockensmith v. State, 524 So.2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and Wickland v. State, 642 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); and 2) that while a defendant may waive his or her rights to be personally present and be constructively present through counsel, the court must certify through proper inquiry that the waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Jarrett v. State, 654 So.2d 973, 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). No attempt to make an inquiry was done in the present case. We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new hearing. In light of our ruling on this issue, it is unnecessary for us to reach the other issue raised by appellant.

JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.