KEONDRA TYRIEK MEUSE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed Meuse's judgment and sentences but reversed the restitution judgment because the restitution hearing was conducted without Meuse's presence and without a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his constitutional right to attend.
A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at a restitution hearing, which may be waived only through counsel with a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver determined by the court.
[1] A defendant possesses a constitutional right to be present at a restitution hearing, which may be waived only through counsel upon the court's determination that the waiv…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a defendant has the constitutional right to be present at a restitution hearing”
Establishing the constitutional right at issue in the case
Keondra Meuse was convicted and sentenced. At the restitution hearing, defense counsel stated he did not know if Meuse waived his presence and argued …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Restitution Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
We affirm, without comment, Keondra Meuse's judgment and sentences.
However, we reverse the final judgment of restitution and remand for further proceedings. Meuse complains that the restitution hearing was conducted in his absence. At the hearing, defense counsel advised the trial court that he did not know if
Meuse waived his presence, and he posited that a restitution hearing was not a critical stage of the proceedings. This was incorrect; a defendant has the constitutional right to be present at a restitution hearing. M.W.G. v. State, 945 So. 2d 597, 599–600 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2006) (citing Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 1995)). Although this right may be waived through counsel, the court must determine that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Id. at 600. That did not happen here, and the State concedes error on this point. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of restitution and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SILBERMAN and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- M.W.G. v. State, 945 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)