Dechaine v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dechaine v. State

705 So. 2d 1070, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1681, 1998 WL 69420

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 1998

DocketNo. 98-0469

StatusPublished

This text of 705 So. 2d 1070 (Dechaine v. State) 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

Dechaine v. State, 705 So. 2d 1070, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1681, 1998 WL 69420 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner having been charged with capital sexual battery alleges that the trial court improperly denied his bond request. Specifically, petitioner contends that the state failed to present evidence that the proof of guilt is evident or that the presumption of guilt is great. State v. Arthur, 390 So.2d 717 (Fla.1980); Elderbroom v. Knowles, 621 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

The briefing in this case reveals that there was a misunderstanding surrounding the trial court’s review of the warrant affidavit such that petitioner did not have an opportunity to address the court’s taking judicial notice of the matter. See § 90.204, Fla. Stat. (1997); [1071]*1071see also Mininni v. Gillum, 477 So.2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we remand the case for the trial court to entertain petitioner’s objections to the trial court’s consideration of the warrant affidavit. The trial court may reconsider its ruling at that time.

FARMER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner having been charged with capital sexual battery alleges that the trial court improperly denied his bond request. Specifically, petitioner contends that the state failed to present evidence that the proof of guilt is evident or that the presumption of guilt is great. State v. Arthur, 390 So.2d 717 (Fla.1980); Elderbroom v. Knowles, 621 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

The briefing in this case reveals that there was a misunderstanding surrounding the trial court’s review of the warrant affidavit such that petitioner did not have an opportunity to address the court’s taking judicial notice of the matter. See § 90.204, Fla. Stat. (1997); [1071]*1071see also Mininni v. Gillum, 477 So.2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we remand the case for the trial court to entertain petitioner’s objections to the trial court’s consideration of the warrant affidavit. The trial court may reconsider its ruling at that time.

FARMER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 1070, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1681, 1998 WL 69420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dechaine-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack