ROSNIEL ORFELIA
v.
DANIEL JUNIOR, ETC.
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.
A defendant who violates a condition of pretrial release forfeits the right to continued release under the original bond but retains the constitutional right to pretrial release, and a trial court must follow section 907.041 and applicable rules when holding a defendant without bond.
[1] When a defendant is held without bond following revocation of pretrial release, a trial court must comply with the statutory pretrial detention procedures in section 907.…
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 intelligence“A defendant who violates a condition of his pretrial release forfeits his right to continued release under the original bond, but does not forfeit altogether his constitutional right to pretrial release.”
Established principle reaffirmed in the opinion regarding the scope of a defendant's rights after violating pretrial release conditions.
Orfelia was charged with three third-degree felonies and released to electronic monitoring. He was returned to custody for leaving home without an app…
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 Revocation Of Pretrial Release cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 7, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1052 Lower Tribunal Nos. F20-10110, F20-9649
________________
Rosniel Orfelia,
Petitioner,
vs.
Daniel Junior, etc., et al.,
Respondents.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and James Odell, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent The State of Florida. Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. EMAS, C.J.
In the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, Rosniel Orfelia
contends he is being held illegally. Petitioner was charged with three third-
degree felonies, and had been released to electronically monitored house
arrest. He was returned to custody after his pretrial release officer filed an
affidavit alleging that, on two occasions, petitioner left home without an
approved schedule. There was no allegation that petitioner had committed
a new criminal offense while on pretrial release. At the hearing, held after
petitioner was returned to custody, the trial court revoked petitioner’s pretrial
release. The State orally requested that the trial court deny petitioner any
further bond or pretrial release. The defense requested that the trial court
set a new bond, given that petitioner was charged with bondable offenses
and there was no allegation that he had committed a new offense while out
on pretrial release. The trial court denied the request to set a new bond, and
petitioner continues to be held in custody without bond.
The circumstances of the instant case—the offenses with which
petitioner is charged are all bondable as a matter of right; petitioner’s pretrial
release to electronic monitoring was revoked for violating a condition of
release, but not for an alleged commission of a new offense;1 and the State
has not filed a motion for pretrial detention—render it indistinguishable from
Ginsberg v. Ryan, 60 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), in which we granted a
similar petition for writ of habeas corpus. As we held in Ginsberg, and
reaffirm here:
A defendant who violates a condition of his pretrial release forfeits his right to continued release under the original bond, but does not forfeit altogether his constitutional right to pretrial release. A trial court's authority to hold the defendant without any bond is circumscribed by the provisions of section 907.041, see State v. Paul, 783 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.2001), and the trial court must consider and follow the pertinent provisions of the pretrial detention statute, as well as Rules 3.131 and 3.132. Roby v. State, 795 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). “A final order of pretrial detention shall be entered only after a hearing ... [and] shall be held within 5 days of the filing of the motion or the date of taking the person in custody ... whichever is later.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.132(c)(1). The defendant “is entitled to be represented by counsel, to present witnesses and evidence and to cross- examine witnesses.” § 907.041(4)(h). Finally, the pretrial detention order “shall contain findings of fact and conclusions of law to support it.” § 907.041(4)(i); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.132(2). Id. at 477.
We therefore grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand
this cause to the trial court. The State shall have no more than three
business days following the issuance of this opinion to file a legally sufficient
motion for pretrial detention. Should the State fail to file such a motion, the
finds probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a new crime while on pretrial release.”)
trial court shall immediately thereafter conduct a hearing pursuant to Rule
3.131 to determine appropriate conditions of release. The defendant shall
remain in custody pending the determination of pretrial release or detention.
This opinion shall take effect immediately notwithstanding the filing or
disposition of any motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Paul, 783 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2001)
- Ginsberg v. Ryan, 60 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Roby v. State, 795 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)