UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LESLIE WILLIAM HINOTE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 1986-04-29
No. 86-7261
789 F.2d 1490 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1986) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT:

BY THE COURT:

United States v. Hurtado, 779 F. 2d 1467 (11th Cir.1985) requires that we strictly construe provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq. (the Act). Pursuant to the Act, a rebut-table presumption arises that a defendant presents a danger to a community and thus should be detained pending trial if he is charged with and probable cause exists that he committed

an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or section 1 of the Act of September 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. 955a)....

18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(C). The district court, in concluding that Hinote should be detained pending trial, ruled that such a rebuttable presumption was raised as the combination of the maximum sentences for each charge brought against the defendant exceeded ten years. In light of our holding in Hurtado, we cannot construe section 3142(f)(1)(C) to mean anything other than that the maximum sentence for each offense must exceed ten years. Thus the district court’s action in adding together the maximum sentences of each of the alleged offenses in order to invoke application of section 3142(f)(1)(C) was improper. The district court’s order indicates it relied in part upon the rebuttable presumption provided for by section 3142(f)(1)(C) in ordering the defendant detained. While it appears that the district court considered other facts contemplated by the statute as grounds for pre-trial detention, we cannot know whether pre-trial detention would have been ordered absent the rebuttable presumption. As such, the order of pre-trial detention is vacated and remanded with instructions to hold a de novo hearing to determine whether, absent the rebuttable presumption of section 3142(f)(1)(C), pre-trial detention in this case is authorized under the Act.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Knight, 636 F. Supp. 1462 (S.D. Fla. 1986)
    …independent evidence that probable cause exists and that the crimes charged include a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more as prescribed in the Controlled Substance Act. See, 18 U.S.C. 3142(f); and, United States v. Hinote, 789 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir.1986). The burden of production now shifts to the Defendant. United States v. Jessup, supra. The additional statutory factors which must now be considered to rebut the presumption are elaborated in 18 U.S.C. 3142(g). The Court ha…
  • United States v. Martinez, 678 F. Supp. 267 (S.D. Fla. 1988)
    …umption and independent evidence that probable cause exists and the crimes charged include a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more as prescribed in the Controlled Substance Act. See 18 U.S.C. 3142(f); United States v. Hinote, 789 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir.1986). The burden of production (not persuasion) now shifts to the Defendant. The Defendant principally argues that he already has been detained for over fourteen months, and because the trial has now been reset until June, 1988, the D…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw