RAUL CEPERO, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH MASCARA, SHERIFF OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 4th DCA | 2008-05-21
No. 4D08-291
SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
981 So. 2d 671 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Petitioner challenged a trial court's bond order setting bail at $270,000 for drug and racketeering charges. The appellate court granted the writ of habeas corpus, finding the bond amount unsupported by evidence of petitioner's ability to pay, though remanding for the trial court to consider additional evidence and statutory factors.


Holding

The appellate court held that petitioner met his burden of demonstrating the bond amount was unreasonable based on the record, as the state presented no evidence supporting the amount set by the trial court. The court granted the writ but remanded for the trial court to consider additional evidence and statutory factors in redetermining appropriate bond conditions.


Headnotes

[1] A bond amount is unreasonable when the evidence presented at the hearing does not support the petitioner's ability to pay that amount.

[2] A petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating that a bond amount is unreasonable based on the current record.

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

Key Quotes

“Because the evidence presented at the hearing does not support the petitioner's ability to pay a bond in this amount, we grant the writ.”

States the core holding that the bond amount was unsupported by evidence of petitioner's financial ability to pay.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner was charged with conspiracy to traffic in marijuana, cultivation of marijuana, and racketeering following discovery of marijuana plants in …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We grant petitioner’s motion for rehearing (to which the state did not respond), withdraw our previous opinion, and issue the following opinion in its place. The motion for rehearing brought to this court’s attention an error that occurred in the transcription of the proceedings at the bond hearing.1

Petitioner challenges the trial court’s order setting bond at $270,000 on the charges of conspiracy to traffic in cannabis, cultivation of cannabis, and RICO. Because the evidence presented at the hearing does not support the petitioner’s ability to pay a bond in this amount, we grant the writ.

Petitioner was charged with conspiracy to traffic in marijuana, cultivation of marijuana, and racketeering as a result of the discovery of marijuana being grown in his house. His bond was originally set at $900,000. At the hearing on petitioner’s motion for bond reduction, the court reduced the bond to $270,000. In addition to the monetary bond, the trial court required petitioner to turn over his passport, submit to community control, and wear an ankle monitor. While he had some financial resources, the evidence did not support his ability to post a bond of the amount set by the court. Petitioner has carried his burden of demonstrating, based on the current record, that the bond amount is unreasonable. Brazil v. Jenne, 755 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Other circumstances, not apparent in the record before this court, may justify a higher bond, the same bond, or additional conditions and requirements. However, the state presented no evidence at the hearing below supporting the amount set by the trial court. See Dyson v. Campbell, 921 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (explaining that petitioner’s inability to post a certain bond amount does not render that amount per se unreasonable and trial court must consider many other factors in deter mining what conditions for pretrial release are appropriate). On remand, the court may hear additional evidence in support of the reasonableness of this bond including evidence regarding the statutory factors for setting conditions for pretrial release. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.131(b)(3); § 903.046, Fla. Stat. (2007).

SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur. . The error concerned matters contradicting the conclusion that petitioner had failed to show he could not post the bond amount set in this case. Petitioner has filed a corrected transcript along with a sworn statement from the transcriptionist verifying the existence of the error and the authenticity of the corrected transcript.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Sparkman v. State, 994 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
    …onsidered when the $100,000.00 bond amount was set following this court’s 2005 reversal. Martin, 745 So. 2d at 412. Similarly, there was no consideration of the other factors as set forth in Florida Statute section 903.046(2). See Cepero v. Mascara, 981 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). On remand, the court may hear evidence in support of the reasonableness of this bond including evidence regarding the statutory factors for setting conditions for pretrial release. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.131(b)(3); § 903.046, Fla.…
  • Tonuya Rainey v. Al Lamberti, 9 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
    …ta v. Lwmberti, 993 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Rather, as the state concedes, the trial court failed to consider the appropriate pretrial release factors. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.131(b)(3); § 903.046, Fla. Stat. (2008); see also Cepe-ro v. Mascara, 981 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Where the evidence at a bond hearing is insufficient on this criteria, ha-beas corpus should be granted and the cause remanded to the trial court for a new determination. Patterson, 707 So. 2d at 947. As we noted in Cepero, “[…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw