DANIEL T. LEE A/K/A TERRY PROCTOR A/K/A DANNY STAKINS, PETITIONER,
v.
EDWARD W. BIELUCH, SHERIFF 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.
Daniel Lee sought habeas corpus review of a circuit court's denial of his motion to reduce his bond after the state dismissed a robbery charge that had prompted the original bond increase. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that the state failed to demonstrate that new information not available at the initial appearance justified maintaining the increased bond.
The court granted the petition because the state failed to meet its burden of showing that new information supporting the bond modification was unavailable at the initial appearance. The state argued the higher bond was appropriate based on Lee's prior record and the length of his potential prison sentence, but did not prove this information was not already known to the judge at first appearance.
[1] A defendant's bond may be increased based on new charges, but if those charges are subsequently dismissed, the state must present new information not previously considere…
[2] The state bears the burden of demonstrating that information supporting a bond modification was not presented to the judge at the time the original bond was set.
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“it is the state's burden to show that there was information that was not presented to the judge at first appearance that would support the modification of the initial bond”
Establishes the legal standard for bond modifications - the state must prove new information justified the increase
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLee was initially charged in two cases (burglary/grand theft and trespass/grand theft auto) with bond set at $25,000 or supervised own recognizance. S…
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 Nolle Prosequi cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Daniel Lee petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking review of the circuit court’s order denying his motion to modify bond after the state nolle prossed a second charge which had resulted in the increase of his original bond. We previously granted the petition and ordered reinstatement of the original bond. We now write to explain that we granted the petition because the state presented no new information which would justify the increased bond amount once the second charge was dismissed.
Lee was charged in two separate cases with burglary of a structure and grand theft in the first case and trespass and grand theft auto in the second. At first appearance on both charges the court set a bond of $25,000 or “supervised own recognizance” release (“SOR”) with in-home treatment. Lee was released on SOR. Six months later he was arrested for a new offense of robbery with a deadly weapon. He moved for bond, which the court set at $50,000 with house arrest on all three pending cases, thus modifying the original bond. The state nolle prossed the robbery charge another six months later, and Lee moved to modify the bond to return it to the original bond.
At the hearing on modification, the state argued that the higher bond was appropriate because of the length of the prison term Lee was facing due to his extensive prior record. Defense counsel argued that the judge at first appearance knew about Lee’s prior record, but the court interrupted stating, “we don’t know that. A lot of times at first appearances the State is not able to come up with a full record....” Counsel noted that the only reason why the bond was increased was due to the new charge which had been dropped. Nevertheless, the court denied the bond modification.
The fact that the state dropped the charge does not necessarily mean that the circumstances surrounding the new charge did not warrant the change in bond. However, the state did not argue that notwithstanding its decision to drop the robbery charge, information related to that charge still supported the bond modification. Rather, the state argued that the $50,000 bond was appropriate based on the two original cases and Lee’s prior record. Lee suggests that the prior record was known to the first appearance judge. In support of this argument, Lee points out that the standard bond for the offenses charged is $3,000 per offense (as is reflected in the First Appearance sheet in the record), yet the original bond was set at $25,000 or in the alternative SOR, meaning that the judge must have considered other factors. Regardless, it is the state’s burden to show that there was information that was not presented to the judge at first appearance that would support the modification of the initial bond. See Keane v. Cochran, 614 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Here, the state failed to meet this burden as it did not prove that the information about Lee’s pri-or record was not made available at the time the original bond was set. See Santos v. Garrison, 691 So. 2d 1172, 1172-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding revocation of bond due to defendant’s illegal alien status was not supported where record did not reflect whether his immigration status was known when the bond was initially set).
The petition is granted.
HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glendon Goelz v. Bradshaw, 906 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Keane v. Cochran, 614 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The State has the burden of proving that there is a change in circumstances or new information that warrants the increase or revocation of bond. Lee v. Bieluch, 855 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The record does not support the trial court’s conclusion that the letter was new information. Significant portions of the letter were quoted in the probable cause affidavit, which was reviewed by the first appearance judge befo…
-
Bush v. State, 74 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Keane v. Cochran, 614 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The State has the burden of proving that there is a change in circumstances or new information that warrants the increase or revocation of bond. Lee v. Bieluch, 855 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Goelz, 906 So. 2d at 1235. Likewise, in Homerding v. Jenne, 804 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the appellate court granted a petition for writ of habeas corpus and directed the trial court to reinstate an earlier bail order.…
-
Verdell J. Hill, Jr. v. State, 152 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…should be increased or new or additional security required. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131(g). The State has the burden of proving that there is a change in circumstances or that new information warrants the increase or revocation of bond. Lee v. Bieluch, 855 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.132(c)(2) states, in relevant part, that “[t]he court’s pretrial detention order shall be based solely on evidence produced at the hearing and shall contain findings of fact and conclusions o…
Authorities Cited
- Keane v. Cochran, 614 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Santos v. Honorable Edward Garrison, 691 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)