JAMES DEFRAIL BURNS
v.
KEN MASCARA, SHERIFF
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 violation of pretrial release conditions alone cannot support pretrial detention without specific factual findings that no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of harm, assure the accused's presence at trial, or ensure judicial integrity.
[1] A trial court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the statutory criteria for pretrial detention; a bare finding regarding witness credib…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A violation of pretrial release conditions alone cannot supply a basis for pretrial detention without a finding that '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.'”
Court's statement of the applicable legal standard for pretrial detention
Burns was charged with cocaine possession and held without bond after violating pretrial release conditions by failing to report for a drug test. The …
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 Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
We grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand for the trial court to make the factual findings required for continued pretrial detention or to set bond.
Charged with possession of cocaine, petitioner was held without bond after violating the conditions of pretrial release by failing to report for a drug test. Petitioner twice moved to set bond and the trial court denied both motions. At the second hearing, the trial court commented that it did not find petitioner’s testimony “to be the least bit credible.” At no time, did the State file a motion for pretrial detention.
A violation of pretrial release conditions alone cannot supply a basis for pretrial detention without a finding that “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.” Blair v. State, 15 So. 3d 758, 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), approved, 39 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 2010).
In Blair, we explained that “[a] pretrial detention order must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law showing that the constitutional and statutory criteria for pretrial detention are met.” Id. at 759 (citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.132(c)(2); § 907.041(4)(i), Fla. Stat. (2008)); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131(g) & (h).
Here, in its order, the trial court merely found that Burns’ testimony was not credible. The trial court did not make any further findings as required by Blair. Petition granted. WARNER, GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Blair, 39 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 2010)
- Blair v. State of Fla. & Ric L. Bradshaw, 15 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)