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

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