JORDI RIVAS
v.
THE 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 trial court does not commit reversible error when it requires the defendant to be seated at counsel's table next to counsel during an evidentiary hearing, provided the court considers and articulates reasonable factors if deviating from this default arrangement.
[1] The default seating arrangement for a criminal defendant during an evidentiary hearing is at counsel's table next to defense counsel, and any deviation from this arrangem…
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“[T]he default seating arrangement for an evidentiary hearing should be [defendant seated at counsel's table next to counsel as] Gonzalez [v. State, 343 So. 3d 166, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)] describes as optimal, and the decision to deviate from this default position should be that of the trial court, after due consideration and articulation of those reasonable factors warranting such deviation.”
Statement of legal standard from Tarrau v. State citation used to affirm the decision.
Jordi Rivas appealed a decision by the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court regarding his seating arrangement during an evidentiary hearing.…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Tarrau v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1100a (Fla. 3d DCA May 31, 2023) (Scales, J., concurring) (“[T]he default seating arrangement for an evidentiary hearing should be [defendant seated at counsel’s table next to counsel as] Gonzalez [v. State, 343 So. 3d 166, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)] describes as optimal, and the decision to deviate from this default position should be that of the trial court, after due consideration and articulation of those reasonable factors warranting such deviation.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jordi Rivas v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…See Tarrau v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1100a (Fla. 3d DCA May 31, 2023) (Scales, J., concurring) (“[T]he default seating arrangement for an evidentiary hearing should be [defendant seated at counsel’s table next to counsel as] Gonzalez [v. State, 343 So. 3d 166, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)] describes as optimal, and the decision to deviate from this default position should be that of the trial court, after due consideration and articulation of those reasonable factors warranting such deviation.”).…
-
Arnold v. State, 358 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…d at 507. Because of its procedural posture, though, Clarington expressly declined to address whether the defendant would have the constitutional right to be physically present in the courtroom at sentencing. Id. at 509, n.16. In Gonzalez v. State, 343 So. 3d 166, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), this Court concluded that the trial court’s conducting an un-objected to sentencing hearing on September 21, 2020, immediately following revocation of the defendant’s probation, did not constitute fundamental error. Here, Ar…
-
Jordi Rivas v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…See Tarrau v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1100a (Fla. 3d DCA May 31, 2023) (Scales, J., concurring) (“[T]he default seating arrangement for an evidentiary hearing should be [defendant seated at counsel’s table next to counsel as] Gonzalez [v. State, 343 So. 3d 166, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)] describes as optimal, and the decision to deviate from this default position should be that of the trial court, after due consideration and articulation of those reasonable factors warranting such deviation.”).…
Authorities Cited
- Jordi Rivas v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)