ANTWAN RICKS, 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.
A defendant's vague allegation of oversight is insufficient to require a hearing on a motion to set a new bond after failing to appear.
[1] A trial court is required to conduct a hearing on a defendant's motion to set a new bond if the defendant alleges a legitimate issue as to whether their failure to appear…
[2] A defendant bears the burden of establishing that their failure to appear was not willful at a hearing on a motion to set a new bond.
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 intelligencePetitioner failed to appear for a pre-trial conference, resulting in a capias for his arrest without bond. He alleged his non-appearance was due to ov…
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 Willful Failure To Appear cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus as a result of the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on his renewed - motion to set new bond. We deny the writ.
The trial court issued a capias for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear for his pre-trial conference. The capias provided that petitioner was to be held without bond. Petitioner subsequently surrendered himself voluntarily to the Orange County Jail. Petitioner then filed a motion to set aside the bond forfeiture and to reinstate the previously posted bond or, in the alternative, a motion to set a new bond. In his motion, petitioner alleged “his non-appearance was not the product of a willful decision on his part to disobey a directive by this Court, but rather the product of oversight and poor communication with the Office of the Public Defender.” This motion, as well as petitioner’s renewed motion to set a new bond, was denied without a hearing. The trial court’s written order included the notation “multiple prior F.T.A.S.”
Generally, if there is a failure to appear, the court may simply commit a defendant to custody without determining whether conditions of release are appropriate. Wilson v. State, 669 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). However, if a defendant alleges “a legitimate issue as to whether [his] failure to appear was knowing and willful,” a trial court is required to conduct a hearing to determine that issue. Id. At this hearing, the defendant would have the burden of establishing that his failure to appear was not willful.
We conclude petitioner’s vague allegation that his failure to appear was “the product of oversight and poor communication” is insufficient to require the trial court to conduct a hearing on petitioner’s motion. Our denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus is without prejudice to petitioner filing a new motion with the trial court alleging sufficient facts to support a finding that his failure to appear was not willful.
WRIT DENIED.
PALMER, C.J. and TORPY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Blair, 39 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 2010)…the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Blair v. State, 15 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Ricks v. State, 961 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), as to whether a trial court may order pretrial detention based solely on a finding that the defendant’s failure to appear was willful without determining whether conditions of release are appropriate as delineated in section 907…1 / 3
-
Blair v. State of Fla. & Ric L. Bradshaw, 15 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…s in Bradshaiv, which permitted a court to order pretrial detention following a finding of a willful failure to appear without also finding that the constitutional and statutory criteria for pretrial detention were met. The court in Ricks v. State, 961 So. 2d 1093, 1093-94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), appears to have relied on pre-Paul cases to reach the same conclusion as Bradshaw, that a court may order pretrial detention based solely on a finding of a willful failure to ajapear “without determining whether conditi…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 669 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Tausha L. Wilson v. State, 669 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)