ROSHUNDA WILLIAMS,

v.

CASSANDRA JONES, ETC., ET AL.,

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 27, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1277 Lower Tribunal No. F22-10430 ________________

Roshunda Williams, Petitioner,

vs.

Cassandra Jones, etc., et al., Respondents.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas Lynch, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent The State of Florida.

Before LOGUE, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ.

BOKOR, J.

2

Petitioner, Roshunda Williams, seeks habeas relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.134. Based on Williams’ detention for 33 days prior to the State’s filing charges, the absence of good cause for detaining Williams for longer than 33 days prior to filing charges, and noting the absence of either changed circumstances or new evidence not known at first appearance, we find Williams entitled to the relief requested.

BACKGROUND

On June 8, 2022, Williams was arrested and placed in custody for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault with a firearm. Although the first appearance judge ordered Williams released on house arrest, for whatever reason that did not occur and, instead, Williams remained in custody pending arraignment, uncharged. At the July 11, 2022 arraignment (33 days after Williams’ arrest and detention), with no charges filed, the State asked to reset the case to July 18, 2022. Absent the filing of charges within 33 days or the State’s show of good cause for continuing detention for up to 40 days, Williams’ counsel requested Williams’ release on her own recognizance based on the requirement of automatic release under Rule 3.134.1 Accordingly, the trial judge ordered Williams released on

admirably conceded that no good cause existed pursuant to Rule 3.134(2) to extend Williams’ detention prior to being charged beyond 33 days.

4

ANALYSIS

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.134 provides bright-line, clear, and unambiguous guidance: The state shall file formal charges on defendants in custody by information, or indictment, or in the case of alleged misdemeanors by whatever documents constitute a formal charge, within 30 days from the date on which defendants are arrested or from the date of the service of capiases upon them. If the defendants remain uncharged, the court on the 30th day and with notice to the state shall:

(1) Order that the defendants automatically be released on their own recognizance on the 33rd day unless the state files formal charges by that date; or (2) If good cause is shown by the state, order that the defendants automatically be released on their own recognizance on the 40th day unless the state files formal charges by that date.

In no event shall any defendants remain in custody beyond 40 days unless they have been formally charged with a crime.

(Emphasis added). The State argued that the additional misdemeanor charges not specifically listed on the arrest form constituted changed circumstances or additional facts justifying more restrictive conditions of release. Williams’ counsel argued that the State did not move for pretrial detention under Rule 3.321, and no additional evidence or changed circumstances arose since first appearance. The trial court agreed with the State and ordered conditions of pretrial release other than releasing Williams on her own recognizance based on “the two additional charges that were not

2 In addition to the lack of additional evidence or changed circumstances regarding the charged offenses, the record contains no additional evidence or changed circumstances pertaining to Williams’ behavior since her release on July 11, 2022. In other words, the entire basis for which the State seeks additional conditions of release is the addition of two misdemeanor charges flowing from the four corners of the same arrest form presented to the first appearance judge.

3 The substantive rationale for allowing a modification of conditions of release for changed circumstances cuts against the State’s argument. Specifically, where there’s a change in facts or circumstances (e.g., an investigation reveals more victims, the item stolen was undervalued at the initial appearance and is now grand theft, the victim of an assault and battery passes away), the trial court often increases the severity of the conditions of release to account for the new knowledge of the risk to the community. Here, the only “change” was the information including additional offenses not specifically listed in the arrest form but based entirely on the set of facts presented to the first appearance judge at the initial arrest. No changed circumstances or additional evidence emerged. See Soto v. State, 89 So. 3d 263, 263–64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (explaining that once bail is set, a court “cannot revoke the decision if circumstances have not changed or additional evidence emerged since the bond was originally set”) (citations omitted).