LONZO LEE SPARROW, JR., 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.
The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal granted a habeas corpus petition challenging a trial court's authority to detain a defendant pending a hearing on the source of bail funds (a Nebbia hold). The court held that while trial courts may inquire into the source of bail funds at first appearance, they may not detain a defendant for that purpose; detention pending such inquiry violates the defendant's right to pretrial release.
A trial court lacks authority to detain a defendant for the purpose of inquiring into the source of funds used to post bail. While courts may consider the source of bail funds at first appearance to determine whether the bond amount is sufficient to secure appearance, they may not use that inquiry as a basis to deny pretrial release.
[1] A trial court may consider the source of funds used to post bail at a first appearance hearing to ascertain if the bail amount is sufficient to secure a defendant's appea…
[2] Florida courts lack the constitutional authority to detain an accused for the sole purpose of inquiring into the source of funds used to post bail.
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“To the extent that a court inquires at the first appearance hearing as to the source of the funds available to post bail, it is for the purpose of ascertaining whether the bail set is sufficient to secure the defendant's appearance, not to deny him pretrial release.”
Establishes the proper limited scope of inquiry into bail fund sources—to determine adequacy of bail amount, not to justify detention.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLonzo Lee Sparrow, Jr. was arrested for trafficking in MDMA. At his first appearance, the State requested a $50,000 bond, which the trial court grante…
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 Pretrial Release cases and more on FLexlaw
Lonzo Lee Sparrow, Jr. ("Petitioner") petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus regarding the bond set by the trial court following his arrest for trafficking in MDMA. At Petitioner's first appearance, the State requested that his bond be set at $50,000. The trial court agreed to this amount and sua sponte ordered that Petitioner be detained under a Nebbia hold. See United States v. Nebbia, 357 F.2d 303, 304-05 (2d Cir. 1966). This hold required Petitioner to be detained until he was able to establish that his bond money came from a legitimate source. Petitioner argues that the trial court was without authority to order his detention pending a hearing regarding the source of the funds. We *842entered an order granting the petition in part and striking the Nebbia hold and noted that this opinion would follow.
The Fourth District Court addressed the applicability of a Nebbia hold under Florida law in Parrino v. Bradshaw, 972 So.2d 960, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). It concluded that a first appearance court could consider the State's motion for a hearing regarding the source of the funds used by a defendant to post bail. Id.; see also § 903.046(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (2018) (authorizing a court to consider the source of funds used to post bail or to procure an appearance bond, particularly whether the funds were linked to any criminal or illicit activities); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131(b)(2) ("The judge shall at the defendant's first appearance consider all available relevant factors to determine what form of release is necessary to assure the defendant's appearance."). However, we agree with Judge Warner's concurring opinion in Parrino that "[t]o the extent that a court inquires at the first appearance hearing as to the source of the funds available to post bail, it is for the purpose of ascertaining whether the bail set is sufficient to secure the defendant's appearance, not to deny him pretrial release." 972 So.2d at 962 (Warner, J., concurring); accord Casiano v. State, --- So.3d ----, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D358, 2018 WL 844053 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 14, 2018) ("Accordingly, we hold that under our state's constitution, Florida courts lack authority to detain accuseds for the purpose of inquiring into the source of funds used to post bail.").
Here, the trial court set the amount and conditions of the bond at first appearance but sua sponte ordered Petitioner detained pursuant to Nebbia until a hearing could be held regarding the source of the funds he may use to post the bond. We believe that the trial court erred in ordering the Nebbia hold and denying Petitioner pretrial release. We therefore grant the instant petition in part and strike the Nebbia hold without prejudice to the State filing an appropriate motion seeking modification of the bond under rule 3.131(d) or rule 3.132.
GRANTED in part, DENIED in part.
SAWAYA, EVANDER, and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sniceson Fleury v. State, 254 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Nebbia, 357 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1966)
- Parrino v. Ric L. Bradshaw, 972 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Lonzo L. Sparrow, Jr. v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)