DAMEON T. MOORE
v.
STATE
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.
Dameon Moore petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to reduce bail without a hearing. The court granted the petition, finding that Florida law requires bail modification motions to be heard in person by the court, and the trial judge's practice of denying motions via email without a hearing violated this requirement.
The court granted the writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case to the trial court for a proper in-person hearing on Moore's bail modification motion. The court held that section 903.035(2) of the Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(d)(2) both mandate that bail modification motions be heard in person by the court, making denial without a hearing improper.
[1] A motion to reduce bail on a felony charge cannot be denied as legally insufficient without the trial court conducting an in-person hearing with the defendant present and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore was arrested for aggravated stalking after violating an injunction and for violating pretrial release conditions in a domestic violence case. Th…
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 Pretrial Release cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J. Dameon Moore petitions this court seeking a writ of habeas corpus. We grant the petition.1 1 In an order dated May 14, 2018, we granted the petition with an opinion to follow. The order directed the trial court to promptly hold a hearing on Moore's motion to reduce bail.
Moore was arrested for aggravated stalking after an injunction and for violating a condition of pretrial release in a domestic violence case. At his initial appearance, the trial court set bail at $25,000 for the stalking charge and $1,500 for the violation charge. Moore subsequently filed a motion to reduce his bail which the trial court denied as being “legally insufficient.” Moore challenges this ruling.
Generally, every person charged with a crime “shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions.” Art. 1, §14, Fla. Const. After bail has been set, “[a]n application for modification of bail on any felony charge must be heard by a court in person, at a hearing with the defendant present, and with at least 3 hours’ notice to the state attorney.”
§ 903.035(2), Fla. Stat. (2017); accord Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131(d)(2). Thus, since section 903.035(2) and rule 3.131(d)(2) both required that Moore's motion for bail modification be heard in person by the court, his motion was improperly denied without a hearing.2 Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand this matter to the trial court for a proper rule 3.131(d) hearing.
PETITION GRANTED; CAUSE REMANDED.
ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur. 2 The instant petition alleges that, since March 13, 2018, when attorneys with the Office of the Public Defender have filed bail motions requesting a hearing before this trial judge, they have received emails from the judge denying the motions without prejudice. The judge has also attached to each email a 35-paragraph template, suggesting that completion of the template would render the defendant’s motion sufficient. However, the template seeks some information which is unnecessary or improper for consideration in connection with a motion to reduce bail. While no specific information is required to be included in a motion to reduce bail, the factors set forth in rule 3.131(b)(3)-(6) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and section 903.046(2) of the Florida Statutes (2017) are helpful in placing the State and the trial court on notice of the factors on which the defendant intends to rely. Importantly, the failure to include those factors in the motion does not automatically render the motion legally insufficient.