JASON BOYD, PETITIONER,
v.
KEN JENNE, SHERIFF, 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.
Boyd petitioned for habeas corpus relief after his bond was set at twice the scheduled amount for a refiled charge without notice at a status conference. The court granted the petition in part, finding that while the trial court had discretion to set a new bond on the refiled charge, Boyd was deprived of due process by not receiving notice that bond would be set at that hearing.
The trial court had discretion to set a new bond on the refiled charge not limited by the schedule amount, and this was not an impermissible bond increase. However, Boyd was deprived of due process because he received no notice that bond would be set on the refiled charge at the status conference.
[1] A trial court may set a new bond amount in the first instance on a refiled charge, and is not limited by a scheduled amount appearing on a capias.
[2] A defendant must be given notice that bond is to be set on a refiled charge to satisfy due process requirements.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“it appears that Petitioner was never given notice that bond was to be set on the refiled charge at the January 25 status conference, and that he was thereby deprived of due process”
Establishes the core holding that due process requires notice when bond is to be set, even if the court has discretion on the amount
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoyd had been out on a $2,500 bond for four months on a second degree felony charge. At a January 25, 2001 status conference where Boyd appeared to re…
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 Pretrial Release Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
At a status conference on January 25, 2001, at which Petitioner appeared to request an unopposed continuance, he learned that the second degree felony for which he had been out on $2,500 bond for four months had been refiled by the state as a first degree felony. Petitioner had never been served with the new capias, which had been placed in the file.
Petitioner argued for a bond lower than the scheduled amount appearing in the capias, which did not appear to have been set by any judge; the judge instead set bond at twice the scheduled amount for the refiled charge and imposed additional conditions of release. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court, asking that the matter be ordered set for hearing and reinstatement of the initial bond. We grant the petition in part, and order the matter set for noticed hearing. Petitioner argues that the judge sua sponte “increased” his bond without notice, contravening established authority of this court. See, e.g., Montgomery v. Jenne, 744 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
We agree with the state that this was not an increase in a bond that was set but a new bond set in the first instance on the refiled charge, and the trial court had the discretion to set a bond at first appearance on the refiled charge which was not limited by the schedule amount appearing on the capias. See State v. Norris, 768 So. 2d 1070 (Fla.2000).
However, it appears that Petitioner was never given notice that bond was to be set on the refiled charge at the January 25 status conference, and that he was thereby deprived of due process. See generally Lambert v. State, 151 So. 2d 675, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
Accordingly, we grant the petition in part and direct the trial court to hold a noticed hearing on the conditions of Petitioner’s pretrial release with respect to the refiled charge.
DELL, POLEN, and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hampton v. State, 744 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Lambert v. State, 151 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- State v. Norris, 768 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2000)