JOHNNY SOTO, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 trial court cannot revoke pretrial release once granted if there has been no change in circumstances or additional evidence presented.
Petitioner was granted pretrial release after being charged with felonies. At a subsequent hearing, the prosecutor moved to revoke release based on th…
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 Bail cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Johnny Soto, seeks a writ of habeas corpus because his pretrial release was revoked, even though there was no change in circumstances or additional evidence added to the record subsequent to his pretrial release. We grant the petition for the writ and quash the order of the trial court.
Soto was arrested and charged with various felonies that included life felonies. The initial charge was filed in juvenile court, but later transferred to felony court. Soto was granted pretrial release after arraignment, and appeared at subsequent soundings in the trial court. At the fifth sounding, the prosecutor moved to have the trial court hold Soto with no bond, based on the life felony charges. The trial court agreed. Soto subsequently filed the instant petition.
It is undisputed the offenses charged here are life felonies for which the trial court may refuse to provide pretrial release. However, in this case, the trial court granted pretrial release. While the trial court has discretion to refuse bail upon the necessary showing by the State, see State v. Arthur, 390 So.2d 717, 720 (Fla.1980), once it grants bail, it cannot revoke the decision if circumstances have not changed or additional evidence emerged since the bond was originally set. See Creech v. Ryan, 972 So.2d 1021, 1022 *264(Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Burton v. Felton, 625 So.2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
In this case, the State did not meet its burden, as the record does not contain proof that change in circumstances or additional evidence existed at the time of the trial court’s revocation. Accordingly, the petition must be granted.
Petition granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saravia v. FOR Miami-Dade Cnty., 129 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…tion. To satisfy the “good cause” requirement in this rule, the State must present evidence of a change in circumstances or new information not made known to the first appearance judge that warrants the increase or revocation of bond. Soto v. State, 89 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Bush v. State, 74 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Goelz v. Bradshaw, 906 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). We have carefully reviewed the record before us, and conclude the State failed to present evidence of any change in Saravia…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980)
- Slater v. State, 625 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Creech v. Ryan, 972 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)