Stacey v. Cochran

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stacey v. Cochran

664 So. 2d 974, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9356, 1995 WL 504528

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 25, 1995·No. No. 95-2831·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At petitioner’s arraignment, the trial court sua sponte increased petitioner’s bond, because the state filed a notice of intent to seek habitual offender status of the petitioner. The trial court ordered the petitioner in custody and gave his attorney only fifteen minutes to prepare for a bond hearing. Since the trial court did not comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(g) and there is no other provision for the trial court to increase a bond, we grant the writ and remand for proceedings consistent with that rule. See Lambert v. State, 151 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

At petitioner’s arraignment, the trial court sua sponte increased petitioner’s bond, because the state filed a notice of intent to seek habitual offender status of the petitioner. The trial court ordered the petitioner in custody and gave his attorney only fifteen minutes to prepare for a bond hearing. Since the trial court did not comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(g) and there is no other provision for the trial court to increase a bond, we grant the writ and remand for proceedings consistent with that rule. See Lambert v. State, 151 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Stacey v. Cochran, 664 So. 2d 974, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9356, 1995 WL 504528 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

664 So. 2d 974 (Stacey v. Cochran) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related