STEPHEN DICOLLA, 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.
The court held that the trial court must promptly rule on a motion for setting or modifying bail.
Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, treated as mandamus, alleging the trial court failed to promptly act on his request for a bond hearing.…
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 First Appearance cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
The petitioner, Stephen Dicolla, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking an immediate bond hearing to determine conditions of pretrial release. We elect to treat this petition as a petition for writ of mandamus. See, Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c). See also, Johnson v. Turner, 436 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We grant the petition for writ of mandamus.
The petition alleges that the trial court has failed to act promptly on his request for a bond hearing. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(d)(1) requires that the trial court rule on a motion for setting or modifying bail promptly. The trial court has failed to do so in this case and is therefore ordered to schedule a bond hearing and rule on the petitioner’s request in an expeditious manner. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that an “informal policy” exists in Brevard County regarding the refusal by some magistrates on first appearance to modify the “bail” amount endorsed by another judge in issuing the arrest warrant unless the other judge consents. We write to reiterate that such procedures are improper.1 See, Norris v. State, 737 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Faoutas v. State, 745 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
WRIT GRANTED.
HARRIS and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. . These procedures commonly present an issue which is capable of repetition but continues to evade review. See, Norris v. State, 737 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. granted, 749 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 933 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ion 907.041 of the Florida Statutes (2005) and rule 3.132 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure before refusing to reinstate his pretrial release. We agree and accordingly grant the defendant’s request for mandamus relief. See Dicolla v. State, 763 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). See also Daniels v. Jenne, 847 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(hold-ing that defendant was entitled to receive collateral relief when trial court denied his motion to reinstate pretrial release based solely on defendant’s violat…
Authorities Cited
- Norris v. State, 737 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Johnson v. R.V. Turner, 436 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- State v. Jordan, 436 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Faoutas v. State, 745 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)