Miller v. State
| Decision Date | 15 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D08-114.,2D08-114. |
| Citation | 980 So.2d 1092 |
| Parties | Dayne MILLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michelle Hill of The Law Office of Michelle Hill, Naples, for Petitioner.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.
Dayne Miller petitions this court, a second time, for a writ of habeas corpus. Miller is being held without bond on the charge of burglary of an occupied dwelling, for which he is eligible for pretrial detention under section 907.041(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2007). However, the State has never filed a motion for pretrial detention pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.132.1 Rule 3.132(a) provides that "[i]f no such motion is filed, or the motion is facially insufficient, the judicial officer shall proceed to determine the conditions of release pursuant to the provisions of rule 3.131(b)." Rule 3.131(b)(1) sets forth the possible conditions of release and does not contemplate detention without bond.
After his arrest, Miller was taken to a first appearance hearing and detained without bond. Because the State had not filed a motion for pretrial detention, this court granted Miller's first petition for writ of habeas corpus and directed the trial court to "conduct a hearing to determine pretrial release of the petitioner in lower tribunal number 07-3933-CFA according to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131." The trial court once again ordered Miller held without bond notwithstanding the State's continued failure to file a motion for pretrial detention.
In its order, the trial court acknowledged case law cited by Miller, Resendes v. Bradshaw, 935 So.2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which holds that when the State does not file a motion seeking pretrial detention, the trial court is without authority to impose pretrial detention and must, instead, consider conditions of release pursuant to rule 3.131(b)(1). However, the trial court declined to follow controlling law and cited to a concurring opinion in Ho v. State, 929 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (Sawaya, J., concurring), in which the concurring judge expressed his personal belief that the State's failure to file a motion for pretrial detention should not deprive the trial court of the ability to order the accused detained provided the necessary showing is made by the State and the appropriate findings are made by the trial court. The concurring judge concluded his opinion by acknowledging that he was bound by the prior decisions of his court which were cited in the majority opinion.2 He further acknowledged that these decisions required that Ho's petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted and a pretrial release hearing be conducted pursuant to rule 3.131.
It appears that the trial court relied on the individual views expressed in the Ho concurring opinion to support Miller's detention without bond but failed to recognize the law governing binding precedent which was alluded to in that same opinion. We instruct the trial court that concurring opinions are not considered precedent. Dunn v. State, 454 So.2d 641, 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Only the written, majority opinion of an appellate court has precedential value. Gould v. State, 974 So.2d 441, ___ (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (). And, because the district courts of appeal in Florida are intended to be courts of final appellate jurisdiction, the opinion of a district court is binding on all trial courts in the state. Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla.1992). If there is unresolved conflict between the district courts, the trial court is bound by the precedent in its own appellate district. Id. at 666-67.
In its response to Miller's first petition for writ of habeas corpus, the State conceded error stating, "In this case, it appears the state did not seek pretrial detention, so the judge was not authorized to impose pretrial detention on the burglary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frost v. State
...Court decision resolving the inter-district conflict, the circuit court in this case was bound by Laveroni. See Miller v. State, 980 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“[B]ecause the district courts of appeal in Florida are intended to be courts of final appellate jurisdiction, the opinio......
-
LoBello v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co.
...contrary decision from another district court of appeal. Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666–67 (Fla.1992) ; Miller v. State, 980 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The circumstance that Kroener had then been “recently decided” by the Fourth District did not trump the numerous authoritativ......
-
Lollie v. State
... ... But that notion was not adopted by the Waldo majority, and reflects only an individual view which is not within the court's holding. See Miller v. State, 980 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The state also relies on the officers' testimony indicating that upon knocking at the front door they perceived circumstances which led them to believe someone might be inside the residence and either unwilling to come to the front door or unable to hear ... ...
-
Perez-Riva v. State
...The trial court could have followed either Rabb or Jardines because this court had not decided the issue. See Miller v. State, 980 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that a single district court's opinion is binding on all state trial courts and that “[i]f there is unresolved conf......
-
Preliminary proceedings (bail and bond; attorney for defendant)
...detention, the court must set a reasonable bond with appropriate conditions of release pursuant to rule 3.132(a). Miller v. State, 980 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) Third District Court of Appeal Hurricane Irma, which closed courthouse September 7 through 18, 2017 pursuant to administrativ......
-
Forum Selection in Administrative Appeals and the "Home Venue Privilege".
...(whether facts are sufficient to satisfy the "official action" element of the sword-wielder exception at trial). (42) Miller v. State, 980 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (the district courts of appeal in Florida are intended to be courts of final appellate jurisdiction, the opinion of......