ZAYED EID BAKHEET ALMAZROUEI, 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.
A Florida appellate court granted habeas corpus relief and remanded for bond reconsideration after the trial court denied bond without following statutory procedures. The court held that because the charged crimes did not constitute "dangerous crimes" under Florida law and the State had not filed a required motion for pre-trial detention, bond with appropriate conditions was warranted.
The court held that bond with sufficient conditions is warranted. Because the charged crimes do not constitute "dangerous crimes" under section 907.041(4)(a), the State did not file a required motion for pre-trial detention, and unrefuted testimony showed that stringent bond conditions could protect the public and ensure appearance, the denial of bond was improper.
[1] A trial court must consider statutory criteria when denying bond, and cannot ignore relevant statutes.
[2] A defendant is entitled to bond with sufficient conditions when the charged offenses do not constitute "dangerous crimes" and the defendant does not meet other statutory…
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“We agree that bond with sufficient conditions is warranted in this case.”
Establishes the court's core holding that the trial court erred in denying bond without conditions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner was charged with three counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, two counts of resisting with violence, one count of criminal mischie…
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 Dangerous Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Petitioner has been charged with three counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, two counts of resisting with violence, one count of criminal mischief, a misdemeanor, and one count misdemeanor DUI. After a hearing, the trial court denied bond. Petitioner asserts that the trial court ignored section 907.041(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), asserting that none of the crimes charged constitute a “dangerous crime,” and the Petitioner does not meet the criteria for section 907.041(4)(e), Florida Statutes (2006). We agree that bond with sufficient conditions is warranted in this case. By previous order, the petition for writ of habeas corpus has been granted and the matter of bond remanded to the trial court, with this opinion to follow.
The testimony and evidence submitted below shows that the State did not file a motion for pre-trial detention, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.132(a)(2007).1 It is undisputed that the crimes charged do not constitute “dangerous crimes,” which would fall under section 907.041(4)(a) and it was not established that the Petitioner meets the criteria for section 907.041(4)(c). In addition, unrefut-ed testimony was presented that there are sufficiently stringent conditions of bond available to protect the public, as well as to assure the appearance of the Petitioner at future proceedings for the offenses charged.
The petition is granted, and the order is quashed, with the matter of bond remanded to the trial court for a hearing to set the conditions for pretrial release.
PETITION GRANTED.
PALMER, C.J., THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. . At the bond hearing, the State agreed that since the charged violations were not life felonies, it was their understanding that bond would have to be set. However, the State argued that the Appellant's behavior concerned them and requested that the court make the conditions of bond “sufficiently stringent” to ensure the protection of the public.