Tarrau v. State
The Third DCA affirmed revocation of Tarrau's probation where he had been seated in the jury box, roughly fifteen feet from counsel, during his evidentiary revocation hearing pursuant to a corrections department policy. The per curiam affirmance rejected Tarrau's structural-error/ineffective-assistance claim because he cited no authority supporting it, but Judge Scales wrote separately to flag the seating practice as problematic.
Key facts
- Tarrau was on probation and faced an evidentiary revocation hearing in which he was seated in the jury box approximately fifteen feet from his counsel, pursuant to a Department of Corrections seating policy.
- The trial court conducted the probation revocation hearing with Tarrau seated away from counsel's table based on the corrections department policy rather than a trial court decision.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Although the disposition is a bare affirmance, the concurring opinion builds on Gonzalez v. State to establish that trial courts—not corrections officials—bear responsibility for deciding and articulating reasons when… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.