ROBERTO CAMARA, PETITIONER,
v.
THE 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.
Roberto Camara sought habeas corpus relief challenging his $5,000,000 bond set in a first-degree murder case. The court granted the petition and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on Camara's financial resources, finding the bond hearing was insufficient because no testimony was elicited regarding the petitioner's own assets or community ties.
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case to the trial court for a full evidentiary hearing on Camara's financial resources and all other appropriate criteria for setting bail, because the bond hearing was insufficient on this critical criterion.
[1] A trial court's ruling on bail is entitled to a presumption of correctness, but an appellate court will grant relief if the petitioner demonstrates that the bail amount i…
[2] Excessive bail, depending on the financial resources of the defendant, is tantamount to no bail at all.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“excessive bond, depending on the financial resources of the defendant, is tantamount to no bond at all”
Establishes the legal principle that bond must be proportional to defendant's actual financial resources to be constitutional
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCamara was charged with first degree murder and held on a $5,000,000 bond set after an Arthur hearing. At the bond hearing, testimony was taken from C…
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 Arthur Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Roberto Camara seeks habeas corpus relief from his detention and bond set at $5,000,000 pending his trial on a charge of first degree murder set after an Arthur hearing at which the trial court found that the proof was not evident and the presumption not great. We hereby grant the petition and remand for a full evidentiary hearing on Camara’s financial resources and all other appropriate criteria.
The bond amount in this case was set after a cursory hearing at which the court took testimony from the petitioner’s sister, Cristina Camara, and the sister’s live-in boyfriend regarding the various assets owned by the family. Petitioner’s sister lives with Julio Varela who testified that he owns a contracting business worth $5,000,000, but he never offered to place his business as surety for Camara’s bond, nor does he have any obligation to do so. This is the same amount used by the judge to set a bond, together with ordering house arrest and ordering petitioner stay away from his children. No testimony was elicited as to petitioner’s financial assets nor his ties to the community.
Petitioner argues that his bond is excessive. Although a trial court’s ruling on bail is entitled to a presumption of correctness, an appellate court will grant relief where the petitioner demonstrates that the amount of bail set is unreasonable under the circumstances. See Good v. Wille, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Fretwell v. Dobeck, 473 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). It is also settled that excessive bond, depending on the financial resources of the defendant, is tantamount to no bond at all. Winer v. Spears, 771 So. 2d 621, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Mesidor v. Neumann, 721 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). That is why evidence of financial resources of the petitioner must be heard and taken into consideration before bond is set. Martin v. Jenne, 745 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Where the evidence at a bond hearing is insufficient on this criteria, habeas corpus should be granted and the cause returned to the trial court for a new determination. Patterson v. Neuman, 707 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus solely to the extent that we remand the cause back to trial court for the purpose of holding an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner’s financial resources and all other appropriate criteria. Nothing in this order shall be construed as directing or mandating the release of the petitioner prior to further determination made by the trial court based on this order. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted and cause remanded. This opinion shall take effect immediately notwithstanding the filing of any motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rogers v. State, 966 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…DCA 1997). In the absence of a record which demonstrated that the amount of bail was beyond the ability of this defendant to meet, we concluded the habeas corpus petition must be denied and so ordered. We acknowledge cases such as Camara v. State, 916 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) where the court granted habeas corpus and remanded for an additional hearing in similar circumstances. We find this to be an inappropriate use of the writ and decline to employ it or to follow Camara to the extent it suggests gran…
-
Mehaffie v. John Rutherford as Sheriff of Duval Cnty., 143 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…13). “[B]ail may not be used to punish ah accused.” Rodriguez v. McRay, 871 So. 2d 1001,1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Therefore, an “excessive bond, depending on the financial resources of the defendant, is tantamount to no bond at all.” Camara v. State, 916 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (citing Winer v. Spears, 771 So. 2d 621, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Mesidor v. Neumann, 721 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). Here, the bond of $750,009 is excessive in light of the undisputed evidence of Me-haffie’s exemplary e…
-
Arslanian v. Junior, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…. P. 3.131(b)(3). Consideration of financial resources is of particular importance, as this court has previously observed “excessive bond, depending on the financial resources of the defendant, is tantamount to no bond at all.” Camara v. State, 916 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). In the instant case, Arslanian correctly contends the trial court failed to explicitly address his lack of financial resources in denying the modification motion. The notion, however, that the trial court did not consi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Finlason v. Finlason, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Good v. Wille, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Davis v. State, 707 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Swihart v. State, 721 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Mesidor v. Neumann, 721 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Fretwell v. Honorable R.T. "Tim" Dobeck, 473 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Darryll Patterson v. Neuman, 707 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Williams v. State, 771 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- 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)