ROBERT BAEHREN, 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.
The court held that the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if probable cause for a new offense still exists after the state filed a 'no information' and victims recanted.
Robert Baehren's pretrial bond was revoked based on probable cause for new offenses (identity theft, grand theft). The state later filed a 'no informa…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Baehren petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking reinstatement of his pretrial bond. His bond was revoked pursuant to section 903.0471, Florida Statutes, after the trial court found probable cause to believe he committed a new offense while on pretrial release. The court found probable cause based on Baehren’s arrest for identity theft and grand theft in a new case.
Baehren subsequently moved the trial court for an emergency bond hearing and reinstatement of his bond after the state filed a “no information” indicating that it did not intend to file charges in the new case. See Lovelace v. State, 906 So. 2d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (observing “A ‘no information,’ which is synonymous with ‘no action,’ is filed by a prosecutor for the purpose of letting a person who has been arrested know that an information will not be filed or an indictment will not be sought.”). Baehren also provided affidavits from the alleged victims stating that he did not use their identity and that they did not want to prosecute. Following a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied his motion.
The state’s notice that it does not intend to file charges in the new case along with the affidavits from the alleged victims tend to show that no new crimes were committed. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there is any evidence to sustain a finding that Baehren committed a new offense while he was on pretrial release. If there is no longer probable cause to believe that he committed a new offense, the trial court shall reinstate the bond.
STONE, FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Casanas v. State, 45 So. 3d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…e is evidence to sustain a finding that petitioner committed a new offense while on pretrial release. The trial court shall reinstate bond if there is no longer probable cause to believe that petitioner committed a new offense. See Baehren v. State, 962 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Obdulio Irizarry, JR. v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)…evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s motion to reinstate bond. Since it is not before us, we do not decide whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s motion under these circumstances. Compare Baehren v. State, 962 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (remanding for evidentiary hearing), with Perry v. State, 842 So. 2d 301, 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding no evidentiary hearing required), and Simeus v. Rambosk, 100 So. 3d 2, 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (same). Conclusion For…
-
Obdulio Irizarry, JR. v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)…evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s motion to reinstate bond. Since it is not before us, we do not decide whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s motion under these circumstances. Compare Baehren v. State, 962 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (remanding for evidentiary hearing), with Perry v. State, 842 So. 2d 301, 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding no evidentiary hearing required), and Simeus v. Rambosk, 100 So. 3d 2, 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (same). Conclusion For…
Authorities Cited
- Lovelace v. State, 906 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)