When Judges Don’t Follow the Law in Florida: The Tishner Case
Judges don’t follow the law in Florida every single time, despite what most people assume about how the system is supposed to work. The common expectation goes something like this: a judge simply applies the law as written, the same way a referee calls balls and strikes according to a fixed rulebook, without personal opinions or private rules of their own. Most of the time, that expectation holds up. Sometimes, though, a judge decides that their own preference matters more than a written procedural rule, and defendants end up paying the price for that decision.
One case illustrates this problem perfectly, and thankfully, an appellate court eventually stepped in to fix it.
Did a Judge’s Personal Rule Land You in Trouble in Florida?
Judges don’t follow the law in Florida every single time, and when that happens, there are real remedies available. Call John Guidry at (407) 423-1117 to find out what your options look like.
What Happened in Tishner v. Cameron
The case is Tishner v. Cameron, Sheriff, 75 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Tishner had bonded out on a violation of probation and hired an attorney to represent him going forward. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.160(a) allows defense counsel to file a written plea of not guilty at or before arraignment, and once counsel files that written plea, the rule deems arraignment waived entirely. This is standard practice throughout Florida, and defense attorneys rely on it constantly to spare clients an unnecessary trip to the courthouse for a hearing that accomplishes very little.
Tishner’s attorney did exactly what the rule permits. He filed the written waiver and instructed his client not to appear at the arraignment. The problem was that this particular judge maintained a personal policy requiring every defendant to physically appear at arraignment, regardless of what Florida’s rules of criminal procedure actually said. Everyone in that courtroom understood this judge’s expectation, even though it directly conflicted with a rule the Florida Supreme Court had adopted for the entire state.
Tishner didn’t show up, following his attorney’s advice and the actual language of Rule 3.160(a). The judge responded by issuing a no-bond capias, a warrant for his arrest that would have kept him in custody with no ability to post bail while the matter got sorted out.
Why the Appellate Court Stepped In
Tishner appealed, and the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the judge’s warrant entirely. The court’s reasoning cut directly to the heart of the problem. A judge’s personal courtroom policy cannot override a statewide procedural rule that grants defendants a specific privilege, in this case, the privilege to waive arraignment through a properly filed written plea. The court held that requiring every defendant to appear, contrary to what Rule 3.160(a) explicitly allows, arbitrarily stripped defendants of a right the rule was designed to protect.
The warrant disappeared, but only after an appeal, after briefing, and after real time had passed while the underlying dispute worked its way through the system.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Tishner Himself
This case matters because it exposes something uncomfortable about how the system sometimes actually works. A judge with enough confidence, and enough distance from meaningful oversight in the moment, can simply decide that a written rule doesn’t apply to their courtroom. Some judges seem to operate from a place of near-total authority, almost like the well-known comedic sentiment about how pleasant it must be to rule without restriction, a line that shows up in classic film comedy and captures exactly this kind of unchecked confidence.
The genuinely troubling part is what happens to the person caught in the middle while the appellate process sorts out that dispute. Tishner potentially sat in custody on a no-bond warrant simply because he followed his attorney’s advice and the actual text of a rule the Florida Supreme Court adopted. That’s not a fair outcome, even though the appellate court eventually corrected it.
What This Means for Defense Attorneys and Their Clients
Cases like Tishner exist specifically to rein in judges who believe their personal preferences can substitute for statewide procedural rules. This pattern shows up more often than most people realize, and it puts defense attorneys in a genuinely difficult position. Follow the actual rule and risk a client facing an unnecessary warrant, or follow a judge’s unwritten personal policy that has no basis in Florida law. Knowing a specific judge’s individual tendencies, separate from what the written rules technically require, becomes essential local knowledge that only comes from experience in that particular courtroom.
For defendants, the lesson is straightforward but frustrating. The written law protects you, but a judge who disregards that law can still create real, immediate consequences before an appellate court gets the chance to intervene. Working with an attorney who understands both the rule itself and the specific tendencies of the judge assigned to your case matters enormously in situations like this one.
If You Want More Related Content
Check out our more videos and breakdown articles covering major updates in Florida defense law. You can also use the links below to stay informed. Learn how to protect your constitutional rights when dealing with law enforcement.
Watch: If You’re Facing a “New Judge”
Read: https://jgcrimlaw.com/articles/2nd-fta-no-bond-capias-not-so-fast/
John’s Takeaways
- Judges don’t follow the law in Florida every single time, and Tishner v. Cameron, 75 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), shows exactly what happens when a judge substitutes personal preference for a written statewide rule.
- Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.160(a) allows attorneys to waive arraignment through a properly filed written plea of not guilty, and this waiver is standard practice throughout the state.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed a no-bond warrant issued against a defendant who followed his attorney’s advice and the actual language of the rule.
- A judge’s personal courtroom policy cannot override a statewide procedural rule that grants defendants a specific right or privilege.
- Real consequences can occur before an appellate court has the chance to correct a judge’s error. Knowing a specific judge’s individual tendencies, alongside the written law, matters enormously for defense strategy.
Facing an Unusual Court Requirement or a Warrant You Believe Shouldn’t Exist?
I’ve been navigating individual judges’ tendencies and courtroom policies across Central Florida since 1993, and I know how to spot the difference between a legitimate court requirement and a judge overstepping the written rules. I represent clients across Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Brevard, and Volusia County.
Give my office a call. Let’s look at exactly what happened in your case and figure out the right path forward.
John Guidry — (407) 423-1117
About John Guidry II
John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 33 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.
John Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.
Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.
When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.