Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

731 So. 2d 746

Schwartz v. Neumann

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-03-31

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 2019

3 state decisions

Relies on Metzger v. Cochran · 728 So. 2d 1167 - Paul v. Jenne

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-03-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

¶2We deny respondent’s motion for rehearing. However, we substitute the following opinion for that issued by this court on March 31,1999.

¶3Petitioner Steven Schwartz filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking relief from a trial court order granting the state’s motion for pretrial detention. The trial court granted the motion based on its findings (1) that Petitioner had breached conditions of his release under a pretrial intervention program deferred prosecution agreement, as well as the conditions of a restraining order issued in accordance with the agreement; and (2) that there were no conditions of release sufficient to protect the community from the risk of physical harm. However, the state failed to prove the existence of at least one of the four circumstances listed in section 907.041(4)(b). Absent such proof, we must vacate the pretrial detention order. See Paul v. Jenne, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D581, 728 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Metzger v. Cochran, 694 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, the trial court’s findings support further proceedings pur*748suant to rule 3.131(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and section 903.046, Florida Statutes (1997) to determine petitioner’s entitlement to pretrial release. We also note that there remains pending a psychiatric evaluation and an unfinished Baker Act proceeding that may bear upon the need for confinement in a mental health facility for appropriate treatment.

¶4Accordingly, we grant habeas corpus and we vacate the pretrial detention order. We remand this cause to the trial court to promptly conduct further proceedings to determine petitioner’s entitlement to pretrial release and/or for further proceedings pursuant to the Baker Act.

¶5Clerk is directed to issue mandate concurrently with this opinion.

¶6DELL, WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

/731/so2d/746 · .json · Public domain