TAUSHA L. WILSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., 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.
Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief challenging her custody commitment after bail revocation for failure to appear at trial. The court granted relief, finding the trial judge abused discretion by committing petitioner to custody without determining whether her failure to appear was knowing and willful, where notice of the rescheduled trial time was inadequate and unclear.
The trial court abused its discretion in committing petitioner to custody. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(g), commitment to custody for failure to appear is only proper when the failure to appear occurred after reasonable notice and was willful. Where there is a legitimate issue concerning whether the failure to appear was knowing and willful, the trial court must make the necessary factual inquiry before committing a defendant to custody.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by committing a defendant to custody for failure to appear without determining whether the failure to appear was knowing and willful.
[2] A defendant's failure to appear in court must occur after reasonable notice to be grounds for commitment to custody.
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“Generally, if there is a failure to appear, the court may simply commit a defendant to custody without determining whether conditions of release are appropriate. However, implicit in the rule is that the failure to appear occurred after reasonable notice, and was willful.”
Establishes that while courts may commit defendants to custody for failure to appear, this authority is limited by implicit requirements of reasonable notice and willfulness.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner attended docket calls on February 26-28, 1996. At approximately 10:45 a.m. on February 27, she was directed in open court to appear for tri…
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 Willful Failure To Appear cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that she was improperly committed to custody after her pre-trial bail was revoked. The trial court revoked bail and issued a capias for petitioner’s arrest when she failed to appear for a rescheduled trial. Petitioner, though, claims her failure to appear was not willful.
Petitioner alleges that she attended trial docket calls on February 26, 27, and 28,1996.
On February 27,1996 at approximately 10:45 a.m. petitioner was directed in open court to return for the start of her trial at 9:30 a.m. on February 28,1996, at which time petitioner was excused and left the court. Approximately one half hour later, the trial judge changed his mind and directed counsel to have petitioner present for trial at 2:30 p.m. that afternoon. Because petitioner does not have a home phone, petitioner’s counsel contacted a relative at 11:30 a.m. Petitioner, though, claims she did not receive notice of the rescheduled trial until 8:30 p.m. on February 27, 1996. At 2:45 p.m., the trial court issued a capias for petitioner. Petitioner’s counsel represents that he objected to the issuance of said capias and the assistant state attorney assigned to the case indicated her concern that no willfulness had been exhibited in petitioner’s failure to appear.
On February 28, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. petitioner appeared for trial, and the trial court ordered the capias executed and committed her to custody, without allowing petitioner or her counsel to address the issue of whether her failure to appear was knowing and willful.
Under these circumstances, we feel the trial court abused its discretion in committing petitioner to custody. In this case, the applicable rule is Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(g), since the court committed petitioner to custody prior to trial. Generally, if there is a failure to appear, the court may simply commit a defendant to custody without determining whether conditions of release are appropriate.
However, implicit in the rule is that the failure to appear occurred after reasonable notice, and was willful. In the instant case, there was a legitimate issue as to whether petitioner’s failure to appear was knowing and willful. Since the capias was not executed until petitioner appeared in court on February 28, 1996, the judge at that time could have made the necessary factual inquiry to determine if commitment was necessary. We therefore grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus, quash the commitment, and reinstate petitioner’s pre-trial bail.
PETITION GRANTED.
W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Blair, 39 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 2010)…r, the court may simply commit a defendant to custody without determining whether conditions of release are appropriate. However, implicit in the rule is that the failure to appear occurred after reasonable notice, and was willful.” Wilson v. State, 669 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Similarly, the Fourth District applied this general rule Bradshaw v. Jenne, 754 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In recent years, this Court has receded from the general rule that a trial court may order pretrial detention…1 / 2
-
Blair v. State of Fla. & Ric L. Bradshaw, 15 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…aul cases to reach the same conclusion as Bradshaw, that a court may order pretrial detention based solely on a finding of a willful failure to ajapear “without determining whether conditions of release are appropriate.” Id. (citing Wilson v. State, 669 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)). We certify conflict with this aspect of Ricks. ' The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted and the trial court shall hold a bond hearing and release the defendant on reasonable conditions unless the court determin…
-
Malave v. State, 727 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ioner to be late. The January 29 hearing did not resolve the question of whether petitioner’s failure to appear was willful or merely negligent and the trial court did not make any finding that the failure to appear was willful. See Wilson v. State, 669 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Petitioner’s bond shall be reinstated and he shall be released forthwith. FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. GROSS, J., dissents with opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence