JOHN C. PERRYS, 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.
Perrys sought habeas corpus relief challenging his revocation of pretrial release. The court held that although Perrys was not entitled to immediate release, he was entitled to notice and a hearing in the trial court before his pretrial release could be revoked, even though the release had not yet been effectuated.
Yes. Although Perrys was not entitled to immediate release, he was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard in the trial court before his pretrial release could be revoked, particularly where he discovered that compliance with a term of release might be impossible.
[1] A defendant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before pretrial release can be revoked, even if the release had not yet been effectuated.
[2] A defendant who discovers that compliance with a condition of pretrial release may be impossible is entitled to a hearing on a motion to modify those conditions.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Petitioner argues, and we agree, that he was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before the trial court revoked the pretrial release that had previously been ordered, even if such release had never been effectuated.”
Establishes the core holding that procedural due process protections apply even to uneffectuated release orders
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerrys was charged with armed burglary with assault/battery, aggravated battery, and criminal mischief. On March 23, 2009, the circuit court granted p…
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 Revocation Of Pretrial Release cases and more on FLexlaw
John C. Perrys petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his continued pretrial detention under the unique facts of this case contravenes controlling statute and rule, and violates his rights under the state and federal constitutions. Although we do not find he is entitled to immediate release, we grant relief in part and hold that petitioner is entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard in the trial court.
Perrys was charged with armed burglary with assault/battery, aggravated battery, and criminal mischief. Pretrial detention was originally ordered but on *741March 23, 2009, the circuit court granted a request for pretrial release. A monetary bond was required, a GPS monitor would be attached to the petitioner, and he would be confined to his parents’ home in Dade County. While in Dade County, he would be supervised by the Pretrial Services Office (PTS) in that jurisdiction. On May 6, 2009, counsel for petitioner moved to modify the conditions of pretrial release because officials in Dade County had informed counsel that a defendant who was not charged in that county could not be supervised by the PTS there. Thirteen days later, counsel emailed the presiding judge and informed him that the factual premise of the motion to modify was incorrect and that, in fact, Dade County PTS could supervise the petitioner. That same day the motion to modify conditions of pretrial release was denied and pretrial release was revoked.
Petitioner argues, and we agree, that he was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before the trial court revoked the pretrial release that had previously been ordered, even if such release had never been effectuated. Although State v. Paul, 783 So.2d 1042 (Fla.2001) is factually distinguishable from the instant case because there the defendant had been released and committed a violation, we find that the reasoning of Paul requires the result we reach. If a new hearing must be held to determine what conditions, if any, will permit pretrial release after a violation, a defendant such as petitioner, who discovers that compliance with a term of his release may be impossible, is entitled to no less.
Upon consideration of the above, we grant the petition, quash the order which denied petitioner’s motion to modify pretrial release, and direct that further proceedings on the motion to modify be conducted in the lower tribunal.
PETITION GRANTED.
HAWKES, C.J., BARFIELD and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller v. State, 116 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…rder denying Fuller’s motion to reinstate conditions of release, and remand for hearing on the motion, at which time the trial court shall consider whether pretrial detention is warranted under section 907.041, Florida Statutes. See Perrys v. State, 22 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). PETITION GRANTED. TORPY, C.J., LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur. . We decline to issue a blanket ruling requiring a hearing in every case where the trial court is presented with evidence that a defendant has violated a cond…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Paul, 783 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2001)