Arcia v. Manning

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arcia v. Manning

680 So. 2d 1146, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11210, 1996 WL 612450

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 1996

DocketNo. 96-2896

StatusPublished

This text of 680 So. 2d 1146 (Arcia v. Manning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arcia v. Manning, 680 So. 2d 1146, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11210, 1996 WL 612450 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After an abbreviated hearing, the trial court concluded that the defendant had procured the absence of the crime victim, his wife, from the jurisdiction so that she could not be served with a witness subpoena. Such conduct would, of course, constitute the crime of tampering with a witness, see § 914.22, Fla.Stat. (1995), and would violate the conditions of pretrial release. See id.; § 903.047(1). See also Fla. Const. Art. I, § 14, 2d sentence (“If 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, the accused may be detained.”) (as amended effective January 1, 1983) (emphasis added); Ex Parte McDaniel, 86 Fla. 145, 97 So. 317, 318 (1923).

The state concedes, however, that the present record is insufficient to support the determination to take the defendant into custody. Accordingly, we quash the revocation and remand for an immediate hearing consistent with this opinion.

Habeas corpus granted, bond revocation quashed, cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After an abbreviated hearing, the trial court concluded that the defendant had procured the absence of the crime victim, his wife, from the jurisdiction so that she could not be served with a witness subpoena. Such conduct would, of course, constitute the crime of tampering with a witness, see § 914.22, Fla.Stat. (1995), and would violate the conditions of pretrial release. See id.; § 903.047(1). See also Fla. Const. Art. I, § 14, 2d sentence (“If 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, the accused may be detained.”) (as amended effective January 1, 1983) (emphasis added); Ex Parte McDaniel, 86 Fla. 145, 97 So. 317, 318 (1923).

The state concedes, however, that the present record is insufficient to support the determination to take the defendant into custody. Accordingly, we quash the revocation and remand for an immediate hearing consistent with this opinion.

Habeas corpus granted, bond revocation quashed, cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

680 So. 2d 1146, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11210, 1996 WL 612450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arcia-v-manning-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack