The State charged Appellant, J.D., a juvenile, by petition for delinquency with third-degree grand theft of a vehicle (Count 1), and burglary of an unoccupied conveyance (Count 2). J.D. was adjudicated delinquent as to Count 1, and Count 2 was nol-prossed by the State. As a result, the trial court placed J.D. on probation.
Prior to the adjudicatory hearing, J.D. filed an “Objection to Remote Trial.” Because the trial court did not make case-specific findings as to why proceeding with the adjudicatory hearing remotely was necessary, over objection, J.D. was denied her right to due process. See, K.M. v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1557, ––– So.3d ––––, 2022 WL 2821506 (Fla. 3d DCA July 20, 2022) (reversing the trial courts overruling of juveniles objection to a remote hearing because trial court did not make any case-specific findings of necessity for proceeding in this manner); M.D. v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1409, D1410, ––– So.3d ––––, 2022 WL 2334996 (Fla. 3d DCA June 29, 2022) (“[D]ue process requires a case-specific finding of necessity before a trial court may conduct a remote juvenile adjudicatory hearing over objection ․”); J.T.B. v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1401, D1404, ––– So.3d ––––, 2022 WL 2334940 (Fla. 3d DCA June 29, 2022) (“[T]he failure to render case-specific findings of necessity justifying conducting the juvenile adjudicatory hearings remotely resulted in a denial of due process.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory proceeding.
Reversed and remanded.
PER CURIAM.