DAN SIMMONS, PETITIONER,
v.
MARYDELL GUEVARA, ETC., ET AL., REPONDENTS
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 court held that the trial court erred in conflating rules regarding preliminary hearings and extensions for filing an information, and that the State failed to show good cause for an extension.
Petitioner was arrested and held without bond. The State moved for an extension to file an information, but the trial court instead amended the bond s…
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 Release On Own Recognizance cases and more on FLexlaw
Based on the State’s admirable confession of error, we grant the Petitioner’s emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus, and order the immediate release of Petitioner on his own recognizance as required by Rule 3.134(1), Fla. Rules of Crim. Proc.
Petitioner was arrested on January 1, 2016 for burglary of an occupied dwelling and domestic battery via strangulation. Petitioner was held without bond, pending the filing of charges.
On February 3, 2016, the 33rd day of Petitioner’s detention, the State moved for an extension of time to file an information pursuant to Rule 3.134(2). In response, the trial court amended Petitioner’s “no bond” status to a $10,000 bond and placed Petitioner on house arrest.
Petitioner objected to those terms, arguing that, since the State had not articulated good cause for an extension as required by Rule 3.134(2), Rule 3.134(1) required Petitioner to be released on his own recognizance.
While not entirely clear from the record, it seems the trial court believed that' the scheduling of an adversary preliminary hearing pursuant to Rule 3.133 could- relieve the State from its- obligation to either file ah information within 33 days of Petitioner’s arrest or show good cause why an extension was required. -
*656On February 8, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant petition seeking emergency habeas relief. We ordered the State to respond on an expedited basis. In its response, the State concedes that, pursuant to Rule 3.134, the trial court erred in conflating Rule 3.133’s preliminary hearing provisions with Rule 3.134’s requirements and that the State has not demonstrated good cause for an extension under Rule 3.134.
Therefore, we grant the petition and order that Petitioner be immediately released on his own recognizance as required by Rule 3.134.