KENT DUPREE, PETITIONER,
v.
RON COCHRAN, AS SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, 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.
The court grants habeas corpus relief where a trial judge revoked a defendant's bond without stating specific facts or reasons. The court holds that if pretrial detention is to be imposed, the trial judge must comply with procedural requirements including making findings that no conditions of release can protect the public and ensure appearance at trial.
A trial judge must state with specificity the facts and reasons for revoking bond. If pretrial detention is ordered, the court must comply with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure by making findings that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that no conditions can be set to protect the public and ensure the defendant's appearance at trial, and the court must consider what conditions of release, if any, are appropriate.
[1] A trial court must state with specificity the facts and reasons for revoking a defendant's bond.
[2] A court's authority to revoke a defendant's bond prior to trial is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(g).
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We grant the writ of habeas corpus for failure of the trial judge to state with specificity the facts on which she revoked petitioner's bond and her reasons therefor.”
Establishes the core holding that bond revocation orders must include specific findings of fact and reasons
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDupree was released on bond but failed to appear for a status conference and was subsequently arrested on new charges similar to those for which he wa…
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 Conditions Of Release cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
We grant the writ of habeas corpus for failure of the trial judge to state with specificity the facts on which she revoked petitioner’s bond and her reasons therefor. On remand, if the trial judge concludes that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the need for pretrial detention because no conditions can be set to protect the public and insure the petitioner’s appearance for trial and that bond must therefore stand revoked, she shall comply with our decisions in Metzger v. Cochran, 694 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and Merdian v. Cochran, 654 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
In this case, it appears that while petitioner was released on bond he failed to appear for a status conference and was arrested on new charges similar to that for which he was on release. Even concluding that the record reflects that the trial judge had apparently previously forgiven his failure to appear for the status conference as inadvertent, we cannot say categorically that the new arrest and the previously forgiven failure to appear together would not support revocation of bond and resulting pretrial detention.
If petitioner is to be held without bond, however, the trial court must engage in the analysis set out in Metzger and Merdian. As we said in Merdian:
“The only authority for revoking a bond is found in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(f) which states:
The court in its discretion for good cause, any time after a defendant who is at large on bail appears for trial, may commit the defendant to the custody of the proper official to abide by the judgment, sentence, and any further order of the court.
In the instant case, the bond was revoked prior to trial. As such, the underlined condition was not satisfied, and thus the court had no authority to revoke the bond of petitioner. “Instead, the respondent argues that what in effect the trial court did was to incarcerate petitioner under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(g).
That section provides that a court may direct the arrest and commitment of a defendant at large on bail when one of several conditions occur, the pertinent conditions to this case being either (1) a breach of the undertaking, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(g)(1); or (2) the court is satisfied that the bail should be increased or new or additional security required. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.131(g)(3).
Under these sections, however, the order for arrest and commitment must recite the facts on which it is based, which was not done in this case.
Moreover, if recommitment is ordered, the court shall determine conditions of release, if any, subject to the requirements of Rule 3.131(b). See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.131(h). While the petitioner requested new conditions, the court did not consider the request or make any finding that no conditions would protect the community from the risk of physical harm and assure the presence of the petitioner at trial.” [emphasis omitted].
654 So. 2d at 574-575. The procedural facts in this case are identical to Merdian. The only possible bases here to revoke bond are the previous failure to abide by the condition to appear at the status conference and the subsequent arrest on new charges. The petitioner suggested that the court consider new conditions of the bond designed to protect the public and secure his reappearance, but the court refused, however, to consider any additional conditions of the bond.
Moreover, the state failed to meet its burden of adducing any evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt that pretrial detention is necessary because no conditions can be crafted to satisfy the public interest. We conclude that the trial judge’s handling of the revocation of bond is in error for the same reasons discussed in Merdian and thus remand for consistent treatment.
GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Paul, 783 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2001)…o deny bond is circumscribed by the pretrial detention statute. See Lepore v. Jenne, 708 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Blackman v. State, 707 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Surdovel v. Jenne, 706 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Dupree v. Cochran, 698 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Metzger v. Cochran, 694 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Merdian v. Cochran, 654 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In Paul, Judge Taylor explained the reasoning behind the contrary view:13 Although we agree with Houser that a tria…
-
Paul v. Jenne, 728 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…TITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . Lepore v. Jenne, 708 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Blackman v. State, 707 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Surdovel v. Jenne, 706 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Dupree v. Cochran, 698 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Metzger v. Cochran, 694 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Merdian v. Cochran, 654 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). . Rule 3.131(b) provides a list of factors for the court to consider when determining whether to release a defendan…
-
Houser v. Manning, 719 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…J., concurring). Notably absent from Merdian and its progeny, see Lepore v. Jenne, 708 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Blackman v. State, 707 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Surdovel v. Jenne, 706 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Dupree v. Cochran, 698 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Metzger v. Cochran, 694 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), is any indication that the Fifth District’s Gardner decision was argued or considered. This is important because the Fourth District has previously cited Gardner with appro…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Merdian v. Cochran, 654 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Metzger v. Cochran, 694 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)