 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walters v. State6/28/2005
Robert Walters appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion for writ of mandamus. Walters sought mandamus relief to challenge a county court order that refused to accept his written waiver of appearance at a pretrial conference and required him to attend the conference. Treating the circuit court's order as a final order subject to de novo review, Mazer v. Orange County, 811 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), for the reasons that follow, we reverse.
Walters has been charged by information filed in Alachua County with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a suspended license, and driving at an unlawful speed. Walters, who is not a resident of Alachua County, executed a written document entitled "Waiver of Presence at Pre-Trial Conference" by which he waived his appearance at pre-trial conference and "all other court proceedings to be held in this case." Thereafter, the county court issued a notice to appear at a trial status conference, at which Walters' counsel appeared. Walters did not personally appear. A capias warrant against Walter thereafter issued. Walters successfully moved to set aside the capias, but the county court rescheduled the status conference and expressly ordered Walters' appearance despite the previously executed written waiver. The county court based its order on the authority of Tellis v. State, 779 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and an administrative order of the Eighth Judicial Circuit. Walters challenged the county court's order in the circuit court by a petition for writ of mandamus. The circuit court denied mandamus relief, noting that a court has the discretion to insist upon a party's personal appearance at proceedings such as a trial status conference. Walters now appeals the circuit court's denial of relief.
The extraordinary writ of mandamus is not used to establish the existence of an enforceable right, "but rather only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in law." Florida Caucus of Black State Legislators v. Crosby, 877 So. 2d 861, 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (quoting Sancho v. Joanos, 715 So. 2d 382, 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)). The decision of a district court of any appellate district is binding on a county or circuit court until that decision is overruled by the Florida Supreme Court. Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992). Here, the rulings of the courts below are contrary to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.180(a)(3) and 3.222(p)(1), and a rule of law clearly and certainly established in the decisions of the Fourth and Fifth Districts in Lynch v. State, 736 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), and Stout v. State, 795 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
In Lynch, 736 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), the district court held that a county court's refusal to accept a defendant's written waiver of appearance at a pre-trial conference was in direct contravention of the rules of criminal procedure and therefore warranted mandamus relief. Similarly, in Stout v. State, 795 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the district court held that, where the trial court rejected a defendant's signed, written waiver of appearance for a pretrial status conference in his criminal prosecution and required the defendant's personal appearance, the trial court contravened the clear dictates of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.180(a)(3)(requiring the presence of the defendant at pretrial conferences "unless waived by the defendant in writing") and 3.220(p)(1)(allowing the trial court to hold one or more pretrial conferences and stating that " he defendant shall be present unless the defendant waives this in writing"). Id. at 1228; see also Kearse v. State, 770 So. 2d 1119, 1125 (Fla. 2000)(explaining that rule 3.180(a)(3) provid
Page 1 2 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|