PATRICK MILLER, PETITIONER,
v.
KEN JENNE, AS SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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.
Patrick Miller petitioned for habeas corpus relief challenging a $25,000 bond imposed after the state reduced his initial first-degree felony charge to a third-degree felony. The court granted the petition, finding the trial court failed to provide notice that bond would be set on the new charge and failed to adequately consider Miller's financial resources.
The trial court lacked authority to set a new bond on the new charge without first providing notice to the petitioner that bond would be set at the arraignment. Additionally, where evidence concerning a defendant's financial resources is insufficient at a bond hearing, habeas corpus relief should be granted and the case remanded for a new bond determination.
[1] A trial court cannot set a new bond on a new charge without providing the defendant with notice that bond will be set on the new charge.
[2] A defendant's request for a lower bond upon learning of a charge reduction does not obviate the requirement of notice that bond will be set on the new charge.
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“Although the trial court had the authority to set a new bond on the new charge as eventually filed, the court could not do so without giving petitioner notice that bond was to be set on the new charge at the arraignment.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that defendants must receive notice before bond is set on a new or reduced charge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller was arrested for a first-degree felony and misdemeanor, with bond initially set at $10,000. The state then reduced the felony charge to third-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 Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief in relation to the trial court’s order imposing a $25,000 bond, and the court’s denial of petitioner’s motion for bond reduction. Petitioner was arrested for a first-degree felony and a misdemean-or, and thereafter posted bond, which was set at $10,000. The state then announced that the felony was being reduced to a third-degree felony, and the misdemeanor dropped. The state accordingly filed its information charging the third-degree felony. There is no indication that the petitioner was given notice of the down-filing.
At petitioner’s arraignment, petitioner’s counsel requested a new bond or release-on-recognizance based on petitioner’s having posted the original $10,000 bond. The court set the bond at $25,000 based on petitioner’s priors.
Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for a bond reduction or release-on-recognizance, stating that he is financially unable to post the $25,000 bond. The matter went before the judge, who refused to consider the motion absent a change in circumstances since the time the $25,000 bond was set.
Although the trial court had the authority to set a new bond on the new charge as eventually filed, the court could not do so without giving petitioner notice that bond was to be set on the new charge at the arraignment. See Boyd v. Jenne, No. 4D01-390, — So. 2d -, 2001 WL 180450 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 7, 2001). There is no indication in this case that the petitioner was given such notice. Also, the fact that petitioner at arraignment requested a lower bond upon learning of the down-filing did not remove the notice requirement.
Further, where the evidence at a bond hearing is insufficient concerning the financial resources of the defendant, habeas corpus should be granted and the cause returned to the trial court for a new determination. See Martin v. Jenne, 745 So. 2d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Patterson v. Neuman, 707 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). Clearly, the evidence as to financial resources was insufficient in this case because the issue was never even discussed.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus, quash the trial court’s order imposing the $25,000 bond, and remand this case to the trial court for a new determination of reasonable bond after an evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s financial resources and all other appropriate criteria.
WARNER, C.J., POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hughes v. Raymond, 916 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ghes for a writ of habeas corpus for [*986] reduction of pre-trial bond, and remand this case to the trial court to determine a reasonable bond after consideration of Hughes’ financial resources, and any other pertinent factors. See Miller v. Jenne, 780 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Henley v. Jenne, 796 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We find this case distinguishable from Henley where the trial court found that based on Henley’s prior offenses and the nature of the current charges, he posed a significant…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 707 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Darryll Patterson v. Neuman, 707 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- W.G. Lassiter, Jr. v. Kimmick, 745 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Martin v. Jenne, 745 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)