ISHSHA SHALEM, PETITIONER,
v.
DANIEL JUNIOR, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Fla. 3d DCA | 2017-10-31
No. 3D17-2312
Before SUAREZ, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.
235 So. 3d 966 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2017)

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.

Synopsis

Ishsha Shalem petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging her pretrial detention without bond. The appellate court granted the petition, finding the trial court failed to comply with statutory and procedural requirements for pretrial detention determinations, and ordered a new hearing with proper findings.


Holding

The trial court failed to comply with statutory and procedural requirements for pretrial detention. The appellate court granted the habeas corpus petition and ordered a new hearing with the trial court required to specifically set forth its findings in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules.


Headnotes

[1] Pretrial detention without bond requires the trial court to make specific findings in accordance with statutory requirements and rules of criminal procedure.

[2] A trial court's failure to delineate findings and reasons for pretrial detention warrants further proceedings.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“The record and transcripts from the hearings showed that the requirements of section 907.041, Florida Statutes (2017) and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.131 and 3,132 were not followed and that the trial court had failed to make the proper findings before ordering pretrial detention.”

Establishes the legal deficiency in the trial court's initial detention order

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Shalem was ordered detained without any condition for pretrial release pending trial. The trial court conducted a hearing on October 30, 2017, but fai…

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.


Opinion of the Court
SUAREZ, J.

SUAREZ, J.

This matter first came before this Court upon Petitioner Ishsha Shalem’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming her pretrial detention without bond is unlawful. A review of the record shows that the Petitioner was ordered detained without any condition for pretrial release pending trial. The record and transcripts from the hearings showed that the requirements of section 907.041, Florida Statutes (2017) and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.131 and 3,132 were not followed and that the trial court had failed to make the proper findings before ordering pretrial detention. We granted the petition and ordered the trial court to hold a hearing no later than Monday, October 30, 2017 and to comply with the requirements of section 907.041, Florida Statutes (2017) and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.131 and 3.132 in determining the appropriate conditions for either release or pretrial detention.

The matter is back before us on the Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Habeas Corpus. A review of the transcript from the hearing on Monday, October 30, 2017 shows that the trial court failed to delineate the findings and reasons for pretrial detention. As such, we send this matter back—once more—for a hearing to be held before noon Wednesday, November 1, 2017, and for the trial court to specifically set forth its findings, in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure and section 907.041, for either pretrial release or detention. The Petitioner shall remain in *967custody pending the determination of pretrial release or detention.

We also find that in the interest of pursuing fairness, further proceedings in this case should be held before a different judge.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw