Dullovi v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dullovi v. State

771 So. 2d 1291, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16153, 2000 WL 1808968

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 2000

DocketNo. 4D00-4120

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 771 So. 2d 1291 (Dullovi 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

Dullovi v. State, 771 So. 2d 1291, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16153, 2000 WL 1808968 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO REVIEW ORDER DENYING POST-TRIAL RELEASE

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying movant Naim Dullovi bond pending appeal of his convictions of resisting arrest with violence and trespass. Neither the trial court’s order nor the transcript of the October 18, 2000 hearing reflect that the trial court considered the criteria for post-conviction bond set forth in Younghans v. State, 90 So.2d 308 (Fla.1956). See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.691(a). The trial court’s order denying bond did not “set forth the factual basis on which the decision was made and the reasons therefor.” Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g)(3). We remand to the trial court for a new bond hearing.

WARNER, C.J., GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO REVIEW ORDER DENYING POST-TRIAL RELEASE

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying movant Naim Dullovi bond pending appeal of his convictions of resisting arrest with violence and trespass. Neither the trial court’s order nor the transcript of the October 18, 2000 hearing reflect that the trial court considered the criteria for post-conviction bond set forth in Younghans v. State, 90 So.2d 308 (Fla.1956). See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.691(a). The trial court’s order denying bond did not “set forth the factual basis on which the decision was made and the reasons therefor.” Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g)(3). We remand to the trial court for a new bond hearing.

WARNER, C.J., GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

771 So. 2d 1291, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16153, 2000 WL 1808968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dullovi-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack