BARRY GINSBERG, PETITIONER,
v.
TIMOTHY RYAN, DIRECTOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS

Fla. 3d DCA | 2011-04-14
No. 3D11-924
Before SHEPHERD, SALTER and EMAS, JJ.
60 So. 3d 475 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2011) Positive Treatment
Cited by 13 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

Barry Ginsberg petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his pretrial detention without bond after violating conditions of his monitored release. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that while a defendant forfeits his original bond upon violating release conditions, he retains a constitutional right to pretrial release that can only be denied through the procedures mandated by Florida's pretrial detention statute.


Holding

A defendant who violates pretrial release conditions forfeits the original bond but retains a constitutional right to pretrial release. A trial court cannot deny pretrial release without strictly following the procedures in section 907.041 and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.131 and 3.132, including filing a timely motion with particularized grounds supported by sworn testimony and holding a hearing within five days where the state bears the burden of proving the need for detention beyond a reasonable doubt.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant charged with a criminal offense is entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions unless the offense is capital or punishable by life imprisonment and…

[2] A court may order pretrial detention if it finds a substantial probability that the defendant has violated conditions of pretrial release and that no conditions of releas…

Previewing 2 of 6 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

“A defendant who violates a condition of his pretrial release forfeits his right to continued release under the original bond, but does not forfeit altogether his constitutional right to pretrial release.”

Establishes the key distinction that violating release conditions does not eliminate the defendant's fundamental right to some form of pretrial release, only the original bond.

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

Ginsberg was charged with DUI causing serious bodily injury, felony DUI, battery on a law enforcement officer, and resisting an officer with violence …

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
EMAS, J.

*476EMAS, J.

The defendant, Barry Ginsberg, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his pretrial incarceration without bond is unlawful. We grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand to the trial court to hold a hearing pursuant to section 907.041, Florida Statutes (2010) and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.131 and 3.132.

Oh April 29, 2010, the State of Florida (“State”) filed an information charging the defendant with DUI causing serious bodily injury; felony DUI (third or subsequent conviction); battery on a law enforcement officer; and resisting an officer with violence. At first appearance, the judge set a bond of $25,000. The defendant, unable to post the bond, requested an alternative form of pretrial release. On June 18, 2010, the trial court granted pretrial release, conditioned on twenty-four hour, electronically monitored house arrest. As a further condition of his release, the defendant was required to remain at home, and was permitted to leave only for scheduled and approved doctor appointments or to attend court. The trial court set an alternate bond of “no bond.”

On June 29, 2010, an affidavit of monitored release violation was filed, alleging the defendant left his residence without permission, and that the GPS tracking device on the defendant revealed that he went to a residential area and was nowhere near a doctor’s office, hospital or pharmacy. Accordingly, the defendant was taken into custody.

At each of three subsequent hearings, the trial court denied the defendant’s request to reinstate house arrest, and denied defendant’s multiple requests to reinstate the bond. On March 28, 2011, the State made an ore tenus motion with the court to deny any bond for the defendant. The trial court allowed the defendant to address the court on this issue, and then denied pretrial release and the defendant’s motion to set bond. As of today, the defendant has been in custody for more than nine months.

Under the Florida Constitution, a defendant charged with a criminal offense is entitled to bond as a matter of right:

Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions. If no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained.

Article I, § 14, Fla. Const.

The State argues the defendant meets the criteria for pretrial detention under section 907.041(4), which provides in pertinent part:

(c) The court may order pretrial detention if it finds a substantial probability, based on a defendant’s past and present patterns of behavior, the criteria in s. 903.0^6, and any other relevant facts, that any of the following circumstances exists:
7. The defendant has violated one or more conditions of pretrial release or bond for the offense currently before the court and the violation, in the discretion of the court, supports a finding that no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons or assure the presence of the accused at trial.

*477However, a court is required to consider the requirements of section 907.041 and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.181 and 3.132 before denying a request for pretrial release. Specifically, the State must file a motion seeking pretrial detention within twenty-four hours of the defendant’s arrest. § 907.041(4)(e), (g); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.132(c). The motion must set “forth with particularity the grounds and the essential facts on which pretrial detention is sought and [must certify] that the state attorney has received testimony under oath supporting the grounds and the essential facts alleged in the motion.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.132(a). If “the State indicates to the court that it does not intend to file a motion for pretrial detention, ... or files a motion that is facially insufficient, the judicial officer shall proceed to determine the conditions of release pursuant to the provisions of rule 3.131(b)(1)” Id.; see, e.g., Rodriguez v. Jenne, 963 So.2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (granting petition for writ of habeas corpus because the State did not file a motion for pretrial detention pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.132); Resendes v. Bradshaw, 935 So.2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). At the evidentiary hearing on a motion for pretrial detention, it is the state attorney’s burden to establish a need for pretrial detention, beyond a reasonable doubt. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.132(c)(1).

The State concedes the provisions of the pretrial detention statute and Rules of Criminal Procedure were not followed in this case, but urges us to affirm the trial court’s decision to detain the defendant because the defendant was given “notice and an opportunity to be heard” on his request for pretrial release following the violation of his monitored release. This argument is without merit.

A defendant who violates a condition of his pretrial release1 forfeits his right to continued release under the original bond, but does not forfeit altogether his constitutional right to pretrial release. A trial court’s authority to hold the defendant without any bond is circumscribed by the provisions of section 907.041, see State v. Paul, 783 So.2d 1042 (Fla.2001), and the trial court must consider and follow the pertinent provisions of the pretrial detention statute, as well as Rules 3.131 and 3.132. Roby v. State, 795 So.2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). “A final order of pretrial detention shall be entered only after a hearing ... [and] shall be held within 5 days of the filing of the motion or the date of taking the person in custody ... whichever is later.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.132(c)(1). The defendant “is entitled to be represented by counsel, to present witnesses and evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.” § 907.041(4)(h). Finally, the pretrial detention order “shall contain findings of fact and conclusions of law to support it.” § 907.041(4)(i); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.132(2).

The State and the trial court failed to follow the above-stated statutory procedures and rules, and such a failure cannot be cured by the fact the defendant might have been given “notice and an opportunity to be heard” before being denied bond. “Although the breach of a bond condition provides the basis for revocation of the original bond, the trial court’s discretion to deny a subsequent application for a new bond is limited by the terms of [section 907.041].” Roby, 795 So.2d at 190 (quoting Paul, 783 So.2d at 1042).

*478We grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand this cause to the trial court. The State shall have no more than three business days following the issuance of this opinion to file a legally sufficient motion for pretrial detention. Should the State fail to file such a motion, the trial court shall immediately thereafter conduct a hearing pursuant to Rule 3.131 to determine appropriate conditions of release. The defendant shall remain in custody pending the determination of pretrial release or detention.

This opinion shall take effect immediately notwithstanding the filing or disposition of any motion for rehearing.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Bratton v. Ryan, 133 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
    …e and/or arguments relevant to the defendant’s pretrial detention, and for the trial court to address and make the requisite findings. The trial court must conduct this hearing within a reasonable time or release the defendant. See Ginsberg v. Ryan, 60 So. 3d 475, 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also Roby v. State, 795 So. 2d 189, 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). This Court’s ruling does not preclude the filing of a motion or presentation of evidence by the State to seek pretrial detention pursuant to Florida Rule of Cri…
  • Ward v. Junior, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
    …etained. Here, it is axiomatic Ward was charged with bondable offenses. He committed no new law violation, and the State failed to file a written motion for pretrial detention. See § 907.041(4)(c)(5), Fla. Stat. As we held in Ginsberg v. Ryan, 60 So. 3d 475, 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) and numerous cases since, A defendant who violates a condition of his pretrial release forfeits his right to continued release under the original bond, but does not forfeit altogether his constitutional right to pretrial…
  • Guzman v. Junior, 211 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
    …esence of the accused at trial. § 907.041(4)(c)7., Fla. Stat. (2017). See also Art. I, § 14, Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131(a); State v. Blair, 39 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 2010); Mendoza v. Cross, 143 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Ginsberg v. Ryan, 60 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). The trial court in the instant case failed to conduct a sufficient hearing and failed to make the requisite findings that Guzman willfully violated a condition of his pretrial release and that no condition of release could reaso…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw