METAYER v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

METAYER v. State

52 So. 3d 691, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11289, 2010 WL 3023397

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 4, 2010

Docket4D09-3651

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 52 So. 3d 691 (METAYER 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

METAYER v. State, 52 So. 3d 691, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11289, 2010 WL 3023397 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF BOND PENDING APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, through counsel, requests review of the lower court’s order denying motion for bond pending appeal. The or *692 der states no reasons for the denial and is, therefore, contrary to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(h)(8) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.691(b); see also Dumas v. State, 889 So.2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that trial court’s failure to make written findings upon denying defendant’s bond request required reversal). We ordered a response from the State within fifteen days, and the State has failed to respond within that time. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of appellant’s motion for an appeal bond. If the lower court again denies bond, it must make the findings necessary to support the denial.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

GROSS, C.J., POLEN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF BOND PENDING APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, through counsel, requests review of the lower court’s order denying motion for bond pending appeal. The or *692 der states no reasons for the denial and is, therefore, contrary to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(h)(8) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.691(b); see also Dumas v. State, 889 So.2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that trial court’s failure to make written findings upon denying defendant’s bond request required reversal). We ordered a response from the State within fifteen days, and the State has failed to respond within that time. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of appellant’s motion for an appeal bond. If the lower court again denies bond, it must make the findings necessary to support the denial.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

GROSS, C.J., POLEN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 So. 3d 691, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11289, 2010 WL 3023397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metayer-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack