M.M., Appellant, v. STATE (2022)

M.M. appeals an order that adjudicated him delinquent for carrying a concealed firearm. He argues that the court should have granted his motion to suppress and that the court erred by holding the adjudicatory hearing over Zoom, a video teleconferencing software program. We find no merit in M.M.'s argument concerning the motion to suppress. However, with respect to the Zoom hearing issue, the underlying facts and legal ruling on review in this case are indistinguishable from those featured in T.H. v. State, ––– So. 3d ––––, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D681a, 2022 WL 815047 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 18, 2022).

In T.H., we concluded that a trial court must conduct a hearing on a juvenile's objection to holding a hearing over Zoom and make a case-specific finding of necessity to limit confrontation rights. Id. at ––––, 47 Fla. L. Weekly at D683. The T.H. panel expressly did not determine whether conducting an adjudicatory hearing via Zoom is unconstitutional, and we do not reach that issue here. On remand, if the trial court holds a hearing on M.M.'s objection and makes a case-specific finding of necessity, the adjudicatory hearing may be held via Zoom. See id.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I concur to reverse and remand this case because we are bound by the decision in T.H. v. State, ––– So. 3d ––––, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D681a, 2022 WL 815047 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 18, 2022). See In re Rule 9.331, Determination of Causes by a Dist. Ct. of Appeal En Banc, Fla. R. App. P., 416 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 1982). If we were writing on a clean slate, I would vote to affirm for the reasons stated in the order on review as well as for the reasons in my colleague's dissenting opinion in T.H.

PER CURIAM.

CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur. LABRIT, J., Concurs specially.