Bennington v. Thornton, 79-1003
| Decision Date | 10 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1003,79-1003 |
| Citation | 370 So.2d 856 |
| Parties | George Russel BENNINGTON, Petitioner, v. Verne C. THORNTON, Jr., Administrator of the Broward County Jail, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Paul M. Rashkind of Sams, Gerstein & Ward, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Petitioner seeks our writ of habeas corpus contending that he is illegally detained. The petition and the appendix thereto show that petitioner was placed on probation on June 28, 1977. When his whereabouts became unknown to his probation supervisor on or about February 1, 1978, a warrant for petitioner's arrest for violation of probation was issued by the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit on March 2, 1978. Petitioner was thereafter arrested in Citrus County, Florida, on April 23, 1979, pursuant to the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit warrant for his arrest. It is the contention of petitioner that he, pursuant to Section 949.11, Fla.Stat. (1977), was entitled to a hearing within ten (10) days from the date of such arrest. We disagree.
The hearing required under Section 949.11 is applicable only in those situations where a probationer has been arrested on a felony charge and pursuant to Section 949.10 the automatic provisions for temporary revocation apply. The record herein reflects that petitioner was arrested pursuant to a warrant for his arrest, as opposed to his arrest for a new felony charge.
When a probationer is arrested pursuant to a warrant, the provisions of Section 948.06, Fla.Stat. (1977), apply. Under this section if the probationer does not admit the violation(s), the court may commit him "with or without bail" and must hold a hearing "as soon as may be practicable." Unless the petitioner can show an abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying bail or failing to hold a hearing as soon as practicable, he has not established a prima facie cause for the issuance of our writ of habeas corpus. No such abuse of discretion has been demonstrated here.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. State
...discretionary power to grant or deny bail to individuals who are charged with violating their probation. See, e.g., Bennington v. Thornton, 370 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So.2d 94, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District specifically held that a trial judge'......
-
Glosson v. Solomon, 86-373
...been interpreted as investing the trial court with the discretion to set bail for accused probation violators. See Bennington v. Thornton, 370 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Where a court is given discretion to act on a matter, the refusal to exercise such discretion is error, see Fazio v. ......
-
Hill v. State, 99-2014.
...v. Griffith, 331 So.2d 313 (Fla.1976), the defendant was arraigned and did not demand a preliminary hearing. In Bennington v. Thornton, 370 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), this court did not address the right to first appearance or arraignment for defendants charged with violation of We gran......
-
McCarthy v. Jenne, 4D03-4324.
...show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying bail, he is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. See Bennington v. Thornton, 370 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In this case, after bond had been set, the state filed an amended affidavit of violation of probation adding the new......