CLAUDE D. KELSEY AND COPEDA O. YOUNG, PETITIONERS,
v.
JIM MCMILLAN, SHERIFF OF DUVAL COUNTY, AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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.
Petitioners sought habeas corpus relief challenging a trial court's order increasing their bail bonds pending trial for drug possession. The appellate court granted the writ, finding the bond increases were improper because they were based on generalized concerns about drug trafficking rather than individualized review of each petitioner's circumstances.
The bond increases were improper. An accused has the right to individualized bail review based on the facts and circumstances of his situation and alleged offenses, which petitioners were denied. The trial court impermissibly attributed to petitioners a role in drug trafficking and violence that was not proved, and the state failed to show any change in circumstances to justify increased bonds when the lack of Jacksonville ties was known at the outset.
[1] An accused has the right to an individualized review of bail based on the facts and circumstances of their situation and alleged offenses.
[2] A trial court may not increase bail based on generalized concerns about societal problems, such as drug trafficking and violence, without specific proof linking the accus…
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“An accused has the right to an individualized review of his bail based on the facts and circumstances of his situation and alleged offenses.”
Establishes the fundamental constitutional requirement that bail decisions must be tailored to individual circumstances, not general concerns.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKelsey and Young were arrested in Jacksonville for simple possession of cocaine, a third degree felony. Initial bonds were set at $5,003 and $3,503 re…
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 Bail Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging the trial court’s order which increased their bonds pending trial. After issuing an order to show cause, we considered the merits of the response and granted relief by unpublished order. We now issue this opinion to explicate our reasons for doing so.
Petitioners were arrested in Jacksonville for simple possession of cocaine, a third degree felony. At first appearance, Kelsey’s bond was set at $5,003 and Young’s bond was set at $3,503. At the time of first appearance, the trial court was aware that petitioners were visiting Jacksonville, but lived and worked in Lake City. The state later filed motions to increase the bonds and a hearing was set. At the hearing, the state argued that petitioners had no ties to Jacksonville and the original bonds were not sufficient to ensure petitioners’ appearance in court for trial. Petitioners argued that they had never failed to appear in court.
The trial court granted state's motion and increased the bond for each petitioner to $15,000. The basis for this increase was the trial court’s concern about the evils of drug trafficking in general and the resulting violence in the community in particular. The trial court impermissibly 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 were aware that petitioners lived and worked in Lake City. State failed to show any change in circumstances to justify the increased bonds.
On consideration of the foregoing, we found the increases of the bonds were improper and we issued the writ of habeas corpus and ordered petitioners to be released on bonds in the amount originally set by the trial court.
WRIT ISSUED.
ERVIN, ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keane v. Cochran, 614 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ith notice to the defendant. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.131(d)(2).1 In order to have good cause to modify a bond, the state must present evidence of a change in circumstances or information not made known to the first appearance judge. In Kelsey v. McMillan, 560 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA1990), the First District held that where a stated reason for an increase in the bond was known both to the state and the first appearance judge at the time the original bond was set, there was no showing of a change of circumstances to…
-
Sikes v. McMILLIAN, 564 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…sing the bail. Petitioner also shows that there were no changed circumstances or newly discovered facts before the circuit judge which were not also known to the first appearance judge when the bond was set at $5,003. Pursuant to Kelsey v. McMillan, 560 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the increase in bail was therefore impermissible and Sikes contended he should be released on the $5,003 bond originally posted. We issued an order which directed the respondent to show cause why the relief sought by Sikes shou…
-
Santos v. Honorable Edward Garrison, 691 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ond was previously established. It is the state’s burden to bring such new information to the court’s attention. Absent such, the initial bond must be reinstated. See [*1173] Keane v. Cochran, 614 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Kelsey v. McMillan, 560 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Sikes v. McMillian, 564 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We have considered 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c), apparently relied on by the trial court, and deem it inapposite. The detention of illegal aliens contemplated by that law requires…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rawls v. State, 540 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)