JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, SR., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND DON GENUNG, SHERIFF, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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 admitting hearsay testimony from confidential informants and that the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the bail amount.
Petitioner sought a reduction of bail, which was denied by the trial court. The hearing involved testimony from police officers relaying information f…
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 Confidential Informant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This petition for habeas corpus is brought pursuant to Rule 3.130(c)(2), CrPR, and alleges that petitioner’s application for reduction of bail was erroneously denied by the trial court. Bail was set at $500,000, and the application for reduction was denied.
We have reviewed the transcript of the reduction hearing and find that much of the testimony in support of the amount of bail set was by police officers testifying as to what various confidential informers had told them. At one point defense counsel requested the name of an informant, which request was denied as was his motion to strike the testimony. Such evidence should have been stricken.1
The remaining testimony introduced at the reduction hearing is not sufficient to support the amount of bail set. We therefore grant this petition for writ of habeas corpus and make it returnable before the trial judge so that a new hearing may be had on the reasonableness of the $500,000 bail previously set.' Such new hearing shall follow the dictates of Stansel with respect to the criteria for setting bail.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur. . See Stansel v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1974, 297 So. 2d 63; Primm v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1974, 293 So. 2d 725.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Good v. Wille, 382 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…irearms. Bail of $100,000 was held not to be excessive in State ex rel. Smith v. Untreiner, supra, for possession of marijuana, conspiracy to commit burglary and possession of burglary tools. $500,000 was held to be excessive in Rodriguez v. State, 305 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), as was $250,000 in Matera v. Buchanan, 192 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Neither case recites the charge against the defendant, but in both cases the appellate courts remanded proceedings to the trial court or granted the petitio…
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Rolando Bardina v. Sandstrom, 321 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…n references in her order denying the reduction of bail based upon hearsay testimony. We have not considered these findings, as this was evidence that should not have been received nor considered by the trial court. Rodriguez v. State, Fla.App.1974, 305 So. 2d 305.…
-
Medina v. Sandstrom, 384 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…bond determinations have been made in part on the basis of hearsay testimony, we have struck the hearsay in reviewing the reasonableness of the bail. State ex rel. Bardina v. Sandstrom, 321 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). See also Rodriguez v. State, 305 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). We cannot discern the extent to which the trial judge was influenced in his decision to deny bail by the wrongfully admitted hearsay evidence. We accordingly remand this cause with directions that the hearsay statement of the vi…
Authorities Cited
- Stansel v. State, 297 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Columbus Fletcher Primm v. State, 293 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)