05-2749 CAMARA V. STATE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2005 » 05-2749 CAMARA V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 05-2749 CAMARA V. STATE

Case Date: 12/02/2005

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2005

ROBERTO CAMARA, Petitioner, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents.

** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D05-2749 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 05-022339

Opinion filed December 2, 2005. A case of original jurisdiction - habeas corpus. Dray, Cabrera & Zacca, and Roger Cabrera, for petitioner. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for respondents. Before LEVY, RAMIREZ, and SUAREZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. Roberto Camara seeks habeas corpus relief from his

detention and bond set at $5,000,000 pending his trial on a charge of first degree murder set after an Arthur hearing at

which the trial court found that the proof was not evident and the presumption not great. remand for a full We hereby grant the petition and hearing on Camara's financial

evidentiary

resources and all other appropriate criteria. The bond amount in this case was set after a cursory

hearing at which the court took testimony from the petitioner's sister, Cristina Camara, and the sister's live-in boyfriend

regarding the various assets owned by the family.

Petitioner's

sister lives with Julio Varela who testified that he owns a contracting business worth $5,000,000, but he never offered to place his business as surety for Camara's bond, nor does he have any obligation to do so. This is the same amount used by the

judge to set a bond, together with ordering house arrest and ordering petitioner stay away from his children. No testimony

was elicited as to petitioner's financial assets nor his ties to the community. Petitioner argues that his bond is excessive. Although a

trial court's ruling on bail is entitled to a presumption of correctness, petitioner an appellate court that will grant relief of where set the is

demonstrates

the

amount

bail

unreasonable under the circumstances.

See Good v. Wille, 382

So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Fretwell v. Dobeck, 473 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). It is also settled that excessive
2

bond, depending on the financial resources of the defendant, is tantamount to no bond at all. Winer v. Spears, 771 So. 2d 621,

622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Mesidor v. Neumann, 721 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). That is why evidence of financial resources of

the petitioner must be heard and taken into consideration before bond is set. 1999). Martin v. Jenne, 745 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA

Where the evidence at a bond hearing is insufficient on

this criteria, habeas corpus should be granted and the cause returned to the trial court for a new determination. v. Neuman, 707 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of habeas Patterson

corpus solely to the extent that we remand the cause back to trial court for the purpose of holding an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's financial resources and all other appropriate criteria. Nothing in this order shall be construed as directing

or mandating the release of the petitioner prior to further determination made by the trial court based on this order. Petition remanded. for This Writ of Habeas shall Corpus take granted effect and cause

opinion

immediately

notwithstanding the filing of any motion for rehearing.

3

Download 05-2749 CAMARA V. STATE.pdf