JAKE RAWLS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Jake Rawls petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a trial court's refusal to reduce his bail from $20,000 for drug possession charges. The Florida appellate court held that while bond schedules serve a valid purpose, courts must conduct individualized case-by-case assessments considering legally relevant factors, and cannot rigidly apply schedules without regard to an accused's particular circumstances.
The court held that while bond schedules serve a valid purpose, they cannot justify excessive bail or justify refusing bail reductions without individualized case-by-case consideration of relevant factors such as financial resources, family ties, employment history, community residence, criminal history, and court appearance record.
[1] Bond schedules may not justify excessive bail; reductions must be made on a case-by-case basis considering legally relevant factors.
[2] Legally relevant factors for bail reduction include an accused's financial resources, family ties, employment history, length and stability of residence, past criminal co…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although bond schedules serve a valid purpose, they may not provide a justification for excessive bail. Reductions in bond must be made on a case-by-case basis with full consideration of the legally relevant factors.”
Establishes the core holding that bond schedules cannot be applied mechanically without individualized assessment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRawls was incarcerated in Marion County Jail under a $20,000 bond for possessing cocaine and cannabis. He was adjudicated indigent with substantial co…
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 Excessive Bail cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
Petitioner, Jake Rawls, seeks a writ of habeas corpus following the denial of his motion for bail bond reduction. Petitioner is presently incarcerated in the Marion County Jail under a bond of $20,000 for the charges of possessing cocaine and cannabis. Respondent, the State of Florida, does not dispute that petitioner has been adjudicated indigent and has substantial ties to the community. At the bond reduction hearing, there was uncontroverted evidence that petitioner had no prior arrests, and lived with his parents until his arrest and confinement. Petitioner testified that he could not post bond in the amount set by the court. There was no showing that petitioner would likely flee the court’s jurisdiction.
The trial court, though, refused to reduce bail below $20,000, which amount conforms to the bond schedule in Marion County for offenses involving possession of crack cocaine.
The trial court stated, “[M]y bond stays the same as it is on all cases with crack, $20,000.00.”
Although bond schedules serve a valid purpose, they may not provide a justification for excessive bail. Reductions in bond must be made on a case-by-case basis with full consideration of the legally relevant factors. See Payret v. Adams, 471 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Such factors include an accused’s financial resources, family ties, employment history, length and stability of his residence in the community, past criminal convictions, and record of appearing or failing to appear at prior court proceedings. See § 903.046, Fla.Stat. (1987); Rule 3.131(b)(3), Fla.R. Crim.P.; Fretwell v. Dobeck, 473 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Good v. Wille, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Stansel v. State, 297 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
An accused who seeks a reduction in bail must adduce evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s order. See State ex rel. Smith v. Untreiner, 246 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), review denied, 250 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1971).
Strict adherence to the bond schedule in the instant case constituted an abuse of discretion, as petitioner presented evidence showing entitlement to a reduction in bail. Cf. Puffinberger v. Holt, 14 F.L.W. 764 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 23, 1989).
Evidence of petitioner’s indigency, family ties, long-term residence in the community, and lack of a criminal record were sufficient to show that bail in the amount of $20,000 was excessive. Cf. Crabb v. Carson, 189 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).1 We therefore grant the petition and remand this case for the circuit court to reduce petitioner’s bail not to exceed $5,000.
Petition GRANTED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . Excessive bail, depending on the financial resources of the defendant, is tantamount to no bail. See Good v. Wille, supra; State ex rel. Bardina v. Sandstrom, 321 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nassetta v. Stanton S. Kaplan, 557 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…nied an earlier petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this very same case, in which the defendant claimed at that time that the bond was excessive. We are of course aware that standard bond can sometimes prove to be excessive, see Rawls v. State, 540 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), but we do not believe it was here. There are clearly some factors present which favor a reduced bond. The defendant has lived in the community a long time, practiced law there for 14 years, and has many relatives in the area, in…
-
Kelsey v. McMILLAN, 560 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ibly attributed to petitioners a role in drug trafficking and violence which was not proved. An accused has the right to an individualized review of his bail based on the facts and circumstances of his situation and alleged offenses. Rawls v. State, 540 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Petitioners were not afforded this right. In addition, the other stated reason to increase the bonds was petitioners’ lack of ties to Jacksonville. When bond was originally set at arraignment, both the trial court and the state…
-
Sikes v. McMILLIAN, 564 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…discretion of the trial court, that discretion is not unbridled. Where a habeas corpus petitioner demonstrates that the amount of bail is unreasonable under the circumstances, an appellate court will grant relief. See, e.g., Kelsey; Rawls v. State, 540 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Good v. Wille, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State ex rel. Bardina v. Sandstrom, 321 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); State ex rel. Crabb v. Carson, 189 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). Section 903.046(2)(h) provides that in…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Finlason v. Finlason, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Good v. Wille, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Jackson Henry Smith v. Royal Untreiner, 246 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Stansel v. State, 297 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Rolando Bardina v. Sandstrom, 321 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Billy Joe Crabb v. Carson, 189 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Jackson Henry Smith v. Royal Untreiner, 250 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1971)
- City OF N. Miami v. Carter, 250 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1971)
- Payret v. Honorable Don T. Adams, 471 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Fretwell v. Honorable R.T. "Tim" Dobeck, 473 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)