Court Opinion

ID: 9861322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:54:01.18491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:13.113152
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority’s holding that it was error for the trial court to require the defendant to wear a security device without an explicit analysis and finding of necessity, using the factors from People v. Boose. However, I do not agree that the trial court’s error necessarily requires reversal of the defendant’s conviction or remand for a new trial. Rather, in a situation such as here, where the record is incomplete as to the trial court’s reasoning for physically restraining a defendant, I believe it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the trial court to conduct a hearing wherein the reasons in support of the decision to restrain the defendant may be stated and supported in the record. In a situation where the record is incomplete as to the trial court’s reasoning for physically restraining a defendant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter for a retrospective hearing where the reasons for physical restraint of the defendant could be fully articulated. See Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 513, 518 (Fla. App. 2001) (no formal hearing on the use of physical restraints is necessary, but where there is a total lack of a record, the decision may be remanded for a hearing); see also People v. Williams, 36 A.D.2d 1018, 321 N.Y.S. 2d 463 (1971) (where the facts relevant to the needs of restraint of defendant are not sufficiently developed at trial, a posttrial hearing should be held on that issue); People v. Reingold, 44 A.D.2d 191, 353 N.Y.S. 2d 978 (1974) (posttrial hearing must be had, wherein evidence should be presented for the record regarding reasons for restraining the defendant). I would remand for a hearing to determine whether a decision to restrain the defendant was appropriate under the factors articulated in Boose. I therefore dissent from the portion of the disposition that reverses the defendant’s conviction.