Duffy v. Crowder

960 So. 2d 909, 2007 WL 2089437
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 23, 2007
Docket4D07-2637
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 960 So. 2d 909 (Duffy v. Crowder) 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
Duffy v. Crowder, 960 So. 2d 909, 2007 WL 2089437 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

960 So.2d 909 (2007)

Sean DUFFY, Petitioner,
v.
Robert CROWDER, Sheriff of Martin County, Respondent.

No. 4D07-2637.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 23, 2007.

Steven T. Greene of the Law Offices of Steven T. Greene, Stuart, for petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Sean Duffy was charged with one count of aggravated stalking, a third degree felony. After a hearing, the trial court denied bond. Duffy asserts, inter alia, that because the State did not file a motion for pretrial detention pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.132, a reasonable bond should have been granted.

We have previously stated:

Rule 3.132(a) allows the state to file a motion seeking pretrial detention at first appearance. When the state does not file such a motion, or the motion is facially insufficient, "the judicial officer shall proceed to determine the conditions of release pursuant to the provisions of rule 3.131(b)(1)." Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.132(a).

Resendes v. Bradshaw, 935 So.2d 19, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Denial of bond cannot be considered a "condition of release." Id.; see also Kelly v. State, 939 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Ho v. State, 929 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Nguyen v. State, 925 So.2d 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Although the transcript of the evidentiary bond hearing contains ample support for the court's decision to impose pretrial detention on this aggravated stalking charge, because the state did not file a motion for pretrial detention, the court below was not authorized to impose pretrial detention.

We grant the petition insofar as the petitioner has shown his entitlement to a pretrial detention hearing upon a proper motion filed by the state under rule 3.132. The state shall have no more than three business days following the issuance of this opinion to file a motion for pretrial detention. Should the state fail to file such a motion, the trial court shall consider the "conditions of release" pursuant to rule 3.131. Petitioner shall remain in custody *910 pending the determination of the issue of pretrial release or detention according to rules 3.131 and 3.132.

Petition Granted.

FARMER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In Re Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.132
19 So. 3d 306 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
Woods v. State
987 So. 2d 669 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Rodriguez v. Jenne
963 So. 2d 933 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
960 So. 2d 909, 2007 WL 2089437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duffy-v-crowder-fladistctapp-2007.