MATTHEW J. NEVADOMSKI, PETITIONER,
v.
KEN JENNE, 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 appellate court granted a petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that a judge improperly revoked a defendant's bond. The court held that new information presented to the second judge did not warrant revocation because the information was already known to the initial judge who set the bond.
The court held that a bond revocation is improper if based on information already known to the committing magistrate and not supported by a change in circumstances or newly discovered information. Therefore, the revocation of the petitioner's bond was unlawful.
[1] A revocation of bond is improper unless the state shows that the revocation is warranted by information not available to the committing magistrate who set the initial bon…
[2] An increase in or revocation of bond may be imposed only based on a change in circumstances or upon information not disclosed to the court at the time bond was previously…
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“an increase in bond is improper unless state shows that increase is warranted by information not available to committing magistrate who set initial bond”
Establishes the legal standard for increasing bond.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner's bond was initially set by Judge Gardiner based on alleged threats. A second judge, Judge Goldstein, later revoked the bond without ne…
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 Revocation Of Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
The record provided by petitioner establishes that the information concerning the alleged threats to witnesses and the victim had already been communicated to Judge Gardiner, who initially set bond, and that Judge Gardiner imposed a bond of $100,000 based on those alleged threats. No new information was presented to Judge Goldstein, the second judge to hear the case, warranting a revocation of bond. See Montgomery v. Jenne, 744 So. 2d 1148 (Fla.App. 4th DCA 1999) (an increase in bond is improper unless state shows that increase is warranted by information not available to committing magistrate who set initial bond); Santos v. Garrison, 691 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (increase in or revocation of bond may be imposed only based on change in circumstances or upon information not disclosed to court at time bond was previously established; state’s burden to bring such new information to court’s attention; absent such evidence initial bond must be reinstated); Kelsey v. McMillan, 560 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (where stated reason for increase in 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 justify the increased bond).
Because petitioner could not have known that this information had in fact been communicated to and relied on by the initial judge in setting bond until he took the deposition of Detective Leischen, appellate review of Judge Goldstein’s revocation of bond was not reasonably likely to afford petitioner appropriate relief. Judge Julian, who was assigned to the case after Judge Goldstein was recused, should have considered the deposition testimony in order to determine if this information was available from the outset.
Accordingly, this matter is remanded for reinstatement of a reasonable bond in light of all the circumstances presented. Any motion for rehearing shall be filed within five days of the release of this opinion.
FARMER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hampton v. State, 744 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Kelsey v. McMILLAN, 560 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Santos v. Honorable Edward Garrison, 691 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)