GEORGE RUSSEL BENNINGTON, PETITIONER,
v.
VERNE C. THORNTON, JR., ADMINISTRATOR OF THE BROWARD COUNTY JAIL, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a probationer arrested on a warrant, rather than for a new felony charge, is not entitled to a hearing within ten days under Section 949.11, Fla.Stat. (1977).
Petitioner was placed on probation, a warrant was issued for his arrest due to an unknown whereabouts violation, and he was arrested. Petitioner conte…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arrest Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
Petitioner seeks our writ of habeas corpus contending that he is illegally detained. The petition and the appendix thereto show that petitioner was placed on probation on June 28, 1977. When his whereabouts became unknown to his probation supervisor on or about February 1,1978, a warrant for petitioner’s arrest for violation of probation was issued by the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit on March 2, 1978. Petitioner was thereafter arrested in Citrus County, Florida, on April 23,1979, pursuant to the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit warrant for his arrest. It is the contention of petitioner that he, pursuant to Section 949.11, Fla.Stat. (1977), was entitled to a hearing within ten (10) days from the date of such arrest. We disagree.
The hearing required under Section 949.11 is applicable only in those situations where a probationer has been arrested on a felony charge and pursuant to Section 949.10 the automatic provisions for temporary revocation apply. The record herein reflects that petitioner was arrested pursuant to a warrant for his arrest, as opposed to his arrest for a new felony charge.
When a probationer is arrested pursuant to a warrant, the provisions of Section 948.06, Fla.Stat. (1977), apply. Under this section if the probationer does not admit the violation(s), the court may commit him “with or without bail” and must hold a hearing “as soon as may be practicable.” Unless the petitioner can show an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying bail or failing to hold a hearing as soon as practicable, he has not established a prima facie cause for the issuance of our writ of habeas corpus. No such abuse of discretion has been demonstrated here.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is denied.
ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woods v. State, 987 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ns is not automatic. Section 948.06(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2006), and rule 3.790(b) provide courts with the discretionary power to grant or deny bail to individuals who are charged with violating their probation. See, e.g., Bennington v. Thornton, 370 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District specifically held that a trial judge’s announced policy of never setting bail on a probation violation charge is in derogation of section 948.06 and…
-
Glosson v. The Honorable Harold Solomon, 490 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…elease him with or without bail to await further hearing....” The statute in question, Section 948.06(1), has been interpreted as investing the trial court with the discretion to set bail for accused probation violators. See Bennington v. Thornton, 370 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Where a court is given discretion to act on a matter, the refusal to exercise such discretion is error, see Fazio v. Russell Building Movers, Inc., 469 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (reversing denial of motion for new trial wher…
-
McCARTHY v. Jenne, 861 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.790(b) (same); Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490, 497 (Fla.1974). Unless petitioner can show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying bail, he is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. See Bennington v. Thornton, 370 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In this case, after bond had been set, the state filed an amended affidavit of violation of probation adding the new charge that petitioner had been driving under the influence of a controlled substance, in addition to alcohol.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence