BRANDON BRATTON, PETITIONER,
v.
TIMOTHY RYAN, ETC., 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.
Brandon Bratton, charged with aggravated assault with a firearm and released on bond, was placed on no-bond status after failing to appear for a pretrial hearing. The Florida Court of Appeal granted his habeas corpus petition, holding that while the trial court properly revoked his bond for the failure to appear, it must conduct a full hearing with specific statutory findings before ordering pretrial detention.
The trial court may revoke a defendant's bond for failure to appear without error, but it must conduct a hearing and make requisite findings under sections 907.041(4)(c)(7) and 903.046 before ordering pretrial detention based on the bond violation. The trial court failed to make these required findings and must conduct another hearing or release the defendant.
[1] A trial court may deny a defendant's request for a new bond after the bond has been revoked due to a breach of conditions, but this discretion is limited by statute.
[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 5 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“the trial court may deny the defendant's subsequent request for a new bond, but the trial court's discretion is limited by Florida statutes”
Establishes that while trial courts have authority to revoke bonds, they must operate within statutory constraints when ordering pretrial detention.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBratton was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm and released on a $7,500 bond pending trial. He failed to appear for a pretrial sounding af…
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 Risk Of Physical Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Brandon Bratton, who was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm and released on a $7,500 bond pending trial, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus based on his current “no bond” status. Although the defendant does not dispute, and we do not find, that the trial court erred by revoking his bond when he failed to appear for a pretrial sounding after receiving both oral and written notice, he contends he is entitled to a full hearing and findings by the trial court pursuant to sections 907.041 and 903.046, Florida Statutes (2014), before pretrial detention may be required based on the motion he filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(d).
In State v. Paul, 783 So.2d 1042, 1051 (Fla.2001), the Florida Supreme Court held that when a defendant breaches a bond condition and his bond is revoked, the trial court may deny the defendant’s subsequent request for a new bond, but the trial court’s discretion is limited by Florida statutes. Section 907.041(4)(c)(7) provides that:
(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. 903.046, and any other relevant facts, that any of the following circumstances exist:
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[.]
Among the criteria in section 903.046 that the trial court may consider is “[t]he defendant’s past and present conduct, including ... failure to appear at court proceedings.” § 903.046(2)(d).
The record reflects that although the trial court conducted the hearing requested by the defendant, it failed to make the requisite findings. We, therefore, grant the petition and remand to the trial court to conduct another hearing wherein the defendant and the State may present additional evidence 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 Criminal Procedure 3.132(b).
Petition granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward v. Junior, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…See Joseph v. Junior, No. 3D21-1025, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1103 (Fla. 3d DCA May 11, 2021); Orfelia v. Junior, 3D21-1052, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1065 (Fla. 3d DCA May 7, 2021); Guzman v. Junior, 211 So. 3d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Bratton v. Ryan, 133 So. 3d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Accordingly, we 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 suff…
-
Daniel v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand to the trial court to set an expedited hearing to determine the issue of pretrial release or his further detention. See Jacobs v. Rambosk, 239 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); see also Bratton v. Ryan, 133 So. 3d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). PETITION GRANTED. NARDELLA, J., concurs. EVANDER, C.J., concurs specially, with opinion. LAMBERT, J., concurs specially, with opinion. 7 Case No. 5D21-237 EVANDER. C.J., concurring specially. I agree that Daniel’s req…
-
Sardinas v. Junior, 252 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Paul, 783 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2001)
- Ginsberg v. Ryan, 60 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Roby v. State, 795 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)