MICHAEL BRACKETT, 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.
Petitioner Brackett challenged the denial of bail in a capital sexual abuse case. The court held that while the state may rely on affidavits to establish probable cause, the trial court must still allow the defendant to present witness testimony addressing discretionary bail factors when a capital offense is charged.
When a defendant is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment, and the state has demonstrated evident guilt or great presumption thereof through affidavits, the trial court must still afford the defendant an opportunity to present witness testimony on the discretionary bond factors and whether bail should be granted or denied.
[1] A state may rely on sworn probable cause affidavits to demonstrate that the proof of a defendant's guilt is evident or the presumption of guilt is great at a bond hearing…
[2] In capital offense cases where the state demonstrates that proof of guilt is evident and the presumption is great, the accused has the right to present evidence to the co…
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“the accused may still come forward with a showing addressed to the court's discretion to grant or deny bail”
Establishes that even when the state demonstrates evident guilt in capital cases, the defendant retains the right to present discretionary evidence on bail
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrackett was charged with a capital felony under Florida Statutes § 794.011(2)(a) for inserting his finger into a child's vagina. Bond was initially d…
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 Proof Of Guilt Evident Or Presumption Great cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner is charged with violating section 794.011(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), a capital felony, by “inserting his finger into [a child’s] vagina.” Bond was denied at the first appearance, pending a full bond hearing before the judge to whom the case was assigned.
Petitioner filed a motion to set bond. At the July 31, 2000 bond hearing the state relied on the sworn probable cause affidavit to demonstrate that the proof of petitioner’s guilt was evident or that the presumption that he committed the offense was great. The trial court denied petitioner the opportunity to present the testimony of witnesses, ruling that “[t]heir testimony [was] irrelevant.”
The state may properly rely on affidavits at a bond hearing to show that the proof of a defendant’s guilt is evident or the presumption is great. See State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla.1980); Kinson v. Carson, 409 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
In cases where a defendant is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment, and the state has demonstrated that the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption is great, Arthur contemplates a full hearing where “the accused may still come forward with a showing addressed to the court’s discretion to grant or deny bail.” 390 So. 2d at 719. Of course, “the burden is on the accused to demonstrate that release on bail is appropriate.” Id. at 720. In this case, the trial court improperly declined to consider any testimony. See Lawyer v. Crawford, 517 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
We grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and direct the trial court to hold a new bond hearing where it shall afford petitioner an opportunity to present witnesses pertaining to all aspects of the bond issue, including whether his guilt is evident or the presumption is great. The testimony may also concern petitioner’s amenability to bond, which is addressed to the court’s discretionary decision as to whether bail should or should not be allowed. After allowing petitioner to present such testimony, the trial court shall determine petitioner’s application for bond on the merits.
DELL, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Benny Rosa v. State, 21 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…come forward to present testimony of witnesses pertaining to his or her guilt and the defendant’s amenability to bond. In the present case the trial court improperly failed to hold such a hearing prior to denial of the motion. See Brackett v. State, 773 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We, accordingly, grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and direct the trial court to hold a bond hearing at which it shall afford the petitioner an opportunity to present witnesses with regard to bond. PETITION GRANTED…
-
Ysaza v. State, 222 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…is great, then the defendant can be held without bond at first appearance. The defendant then may request the judge to whom the case is assigned for an Arthur hearing to set bond. This procedure is consistent with our decision in Brackett v. State, 773 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In Brackett, the petitioner was charged with a capital offense. Id. at 565. “Bond was denied at the first appearance, pending a full bond hearing before the judge to whom the case was assigned.” Id. The petition for writ of habe…
-
Barr v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980)
- Kinson v. Carson, 409 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Johnson v. State, 517 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)