AMIR BUHBUT, PETITIONER,
v.
EDWARD BIELUCH AS SHERIFF OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The petitioner challenges his detention following alleged violations of house arrest conditions. The court holds that the trial court violated statutory requirements by denying bond relief without making findings regarding actual violations or alternative conditions that could ensure community safety and the defendant's presence at trial.
The trial court may not deny bond relief without making findings of actual violation of house arrest conditions and without determining whether any reasonable conditions of release could protect the community and assure the accused's presence at trial, as required by section 907.041(4)(c)7 of the Florida Statutes.
[1] A trial court must make findings regarding violation of release conditions and the necessity of detention to protect the community or assure appearance at trial before de…
[2] A trial court's denial of bond relief without making findings of actual violation or assessing reasonable conditions of release is improper.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court has denied petitioner's motions without making any findings of actual violation of house arrest, or whether there were any conditions of release which could reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons or assure the presence of the accused at trial. This is a requirement of section 907.041(4)(c)7., Florida Statutes (2002).”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court must make specific findings regarding violations and alternative conditions before denying bond.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBuhbut was arrested in August 2002 for domestic battery and aggravated assault with a firearm and was initially released on bond with house arrest con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Risk Of Physical Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner was taken into custody on charges of domestic battery and aggravated assault with a firearm in August, 2002. He moved for release on bond, which the trial court granted, ordering house arrest and a monetary bond. Petitioner posted the bond, resolved an immigration matter, and house arrest was implemented. He was later arrested for violation of the rules of house arrest, by being outside of his house, in his yard, and drinking alcohol. Petitioner moved for a bond hearing, at which he requested that the court impose a higher monetary bond but still allow his release. The trial court did not allow petitioner to present evidence at that hearing, and later entered an order denying the motion “without prejudice to renew.” It attached a copy of the Sheriffs Office report of his violation of house arrest rules. The court made no actual findings, though.
Petitioner moved for another bond hearing, which the trial court entertained. The victim, without being sworn, answered questions about her contacts with petitioner since his detention, and counsel gave additional argument to the court. The trial court orally denied bond relief, advising the parties that its ruling was unaffected by argument of counsel.
The trial court has denied petitioner’s motions without making any findings of actual violation of house arrest, or whether there were any conditions of release which could reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons or assure the presence of the accused at trial. This is a requirement of section 907.041(4)(c)7., Florida Statutes (2002). We reject respondent State’s construction of this court’s decision in Barns v. State, 768 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review dismissed, 796 So. 2d 535 (Fla.2001), as holding that the statute now allows the trial court discretion to deny release on bond solely on a finding that the accused violated a condition of bond. See State v. Paul, 783 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.2001).
We therefore grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand to the trial court to set an expedited hearing to determine whether any conditions of bond were violated, and whether there are any reasonable conditions of release which would protect the community and assure petitioner’s presence at trial.
POLEN, C.J., SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Resendes v. Ric L. Bradshaw, 935 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ling is that it did not “contain findings of fact and conclusions of law to support it.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.132(c)(2); § 907.041(4)(c), (i); Paul, 783 So. 2d at 1049 n. 11; Johnson v. Jenne, 913 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Buhbut v. Bieluch, 835 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). A vague, general reference to “information” and “court files” “received and reviewed” is insufficient compliance with the procedural and statutory requirement of specific findings of fact that support a pretrial detention ruling…
-
Daniels v. Jenne, 847 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…tat. (2002), we grant the petition. We remand for the trial court to set an expedited hearing to determine whether reasonable conditions of release would protect the community and assure Petitioner’s [*1082] presence at trial. See Buhbut v. Bieluch, 835 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
Smith v. State, 933 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…condition of his pretrial release without making any findings to show that no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons or assure the presence of the accused at trial). Accord Buhbut v. Bieluch, 835 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we direct the trial court to conduct an expedited evidentiary hearing to determine whether reasonable conditions of pretrial release would protect the community and assure the defendant’s presence at trial. PETI…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Paul, 783 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2001)
- Dent v. State, 768 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Barns v. State, 768 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)