TIMOTHY LEE SIMS, JR. v. RICKY WELLS, SHERIFF OF MANATEE COUNTY ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •              DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
    SECOND DISTRICT
    TIMOTHY LEE SIMS, Jr.,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    RICKY WELLS, SHERIFF OF MANATEE COUNTY,
    Respondent.
    No. 2D21-1675
    September 29, 2021
    Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Circuit Court for Manatee
    County; Lon S. Arend, Judge.
    Larry L. Eger, Public Defender, and Aaron Getty, Assistant Public
    Defender, Sarasota, for Petitioner.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James
    Hellickson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM.
    Timothy Lee Sims, Jr., filed a petition for writ of habeas
    corpus challenging the order of pretrial detention entered in case
    number 2020-CF-3447. We previously granted the petition by an
    order advising that this opinion would follow.
    Sims, a juvenile, was arrested on four separate cases. In three
    of those cases, the State direct filed charges in criminal court and
    bond was set; the fourth case was initially filed in juvenile court.
    The State subsequently transferred the juvenile allegations to
    criminal court, and bond was set in that case. Thereafter, the State
    filed a motion for pretrial detention against Sims in all four cases.
    After a hearing, the trial court granted that motion in only one of
    the four cases. The court found that the State's transfer of Sims'
    juvenile case to criminal court increased Sims' overall potential
    sentence and was a sufficient change in circumstances to provide
    good cause to revoke bond and impose pretrial detention. In
    coming to this conclusion, the trial court relied on Calixtro v.
    McCray, 
    858 So. 2d 1079
    , 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), in which the
    Third District denied habeas relief because the State filed a written
    notice of intent to pursue enhanced penalties after bond was set at
    first appearance. The court held that the significant increase in the
    possible penalty Calixtro faced constituted a change in
    circumstances that justified a modification of his bond. 
    Id.
    2
    In Sims' petition before this court, he argues that the trial
    court erred in imposing pretrial detention under the circumstances
    of this case because there was no substantial change in
    circumstances after his first appearance in criminal court. He
    maintains that pursuant to section 985.557(2), Florida Statutes
    (2020), once the State direct filed three of his cases in criminal
    court, it was required to file the juvenile allegations in his fourth
    case as felony charges in criminal court. As such, he argues,
    "juvenile court was not an option for Petitioner" and "his sentencing
    exposure never changed." We agree.
    When the State files a motion for pretrial detention after the
    trial court has set bond, the motion must meet the requirements for
    modifying the existing bond order. Bush v. State, 
    74 So. 3d 130
    ,
    134-35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Specifically, the motion "must meet
    the 'good cause' requirement of [Florida] [R]ule [of Criminal
    Procedure] 3.131(d) as well as the substantive requirements for
    pretrial detention as set forth in rule 3.132."1 
    Id. at 134
    . To satisfy
    the good cause requirement of rule 3.131(d), the State
    1Rule 3.131(d)(2) provides that "[t]he state may apply for
    modification of bail by showing good cause." Rule 3.132(b) allows
    3
    must present evidence of a change in circumstances or
    information not made known to the first appearance
    judge. Evidence that was available to the state at the
    time of the first appearance hearing does not qualify as
    new information and therefore does not justify a
    subsequent denial of bail or a subsequent increase in the
    amount of bail.
    
    Id. at 133
     (citations omitted).
    In this case, the State did not satisfy this good cause
    requirement. At first appearance, the trial court and the State
    listed the multitude of charges that Sims was facing, including the
    juvenile allegations that would later be filed in criminal court. The
    State asked that the bonds set in the direct filed criminal court
    cases remain the same, and it urged that Sims be placed on
    electronic monitoring since he had eluded law enforcement for
    weeks. There was discussion about the upcoming date and time of
    the detention hearing in Sims' juvenile case. The only change after
    first appearance was the State's transfer of the juvenile allegations
    into criminal court. But that change was statutorily required once
    the State direct filed the charges in the three other criminal court
    cases. See § 985.557(2)(b) ("When a child is transferred for criminal
    that "[a] motion for pretrial detention may be filed at any time prior
    to trial."
    4
    prosecution as an adult, the court shall immediately transfer and
    certify to the adult circuit court all felony cases pertaining to the
    child, for prosecution of the child as an adult, which have not yet
    resulted in a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or in which a finding
    of guilt has not been made."). And at the time of first appearance,
    such requirement—and the concomitant potential sentencing
    exposure—should have been known to the State and the trial court.
    Accordingly, the transfer into adult criminal court of the
    juvenile allegations against Sims did not constitute a change in
    circumstances that would provide good cause to revoke bond and
    warrant a pretrial detention order. See Saravia v. Miami-Dade
    County, 
    129 So. 3d 1163
    , 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ("To satisfy the
    'good cause' requirement in [rule 3.131(d)(2)], the State must
    present evidence of a change in circumstances or new information
    not made known to the first appearance judge that warrants the
    increase or revocation of bond.").2 As such, we granted Sims'
    2 We note that the trial court's reliance on Calixtro, 
    858 So. 2d 1079
    , was misplaced as that case is distinguishable from the
    instant case. In Calixtro, the change in circumstances that created
    good cause to increase bond from $7,500 to $50,000 was the
    State's decision to pursue enhanced sentencing penalties that it
    was not pursuing at the time of first appearance. Here, the alleged
    5
    petition for writ of habeas corpus and quashed the order of pretrial
    detention. Nevertheless, we certify the following question to the
    Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:
    WHEN THE STATE DIRECT FILES CHARGES AGAINST A
    JUVENILE UNDER SECTION 985.557(1), FLORIDA
    STATUTES (2020), AND BOND IS SET ON THE
    CHARGES, DOES THE STATE'S SUBSEQUENT
    TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 985.557(2) OF
    ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE JUVENILE
    FILED IN A SEPARATE JUVENILE CASE, POTENTIALLY
    EXPOSING THE JUVENILE TO ADULT SANCTIONS IN
    THAT CASE, MEET THE REQUIREMENT UNDER BUSH
    V. STATE, 74 SO. 3D 130 (FLA. 1ST DCA 2011), OF A
    CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUFFICIENT TO
    ESTABLISH GOOD CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION OF
    BOND OR THE CONDITIONS OF RELEASE?
    SLEET, SMITH, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.
    Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
    change in circumstances was known to the State and the trial court
    at the time of first appearance.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1675

Filed Date: 9/29/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2021