Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fleury v. State

Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District

July 25, 2018

SNICESON FLEURY, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CF002910B.

          Greg Rosenfeld of the Law Offices of Greg Rosenfeld, P.A., West Palm Beach for appellant.

          No appearance required for appellee.

          PER CURIAM.

         Sniceson Fleury, a criminal defendant charged with drug trafficking offenses, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a pretrial release condition requiring him to show that the source of funds used to post bond is not derived from illegal activity ("the bond source condition"). We deny the petition and certify conflict with Sparrow v. State, 240 So.3d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), and Casiano v. State, 241 So.3d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), notice invoking discretionary review filed, No. SC18-642 (Fla. April 26, 2018), to the extent they hold that a bond condition like the one imposed in this case is not authorized by Florida law.

         According to the probable cause affidavit, police executed a search warrant at a residence that Defendant shared with his brother and discovered trafficking quantities of drugs, more than $14, 000 in cash, and several handguns. Defendant is charged with: (1) trafficking in heroin; (2) trafficking in fentanyl; (3) trafficking in cocaine; (4) possession of marijuana with intent to sell; and (5) felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition.

         At first appearance in late March 2018, the court set a total bond of $500, 000. In May 2018, Defendant moved to modify conditions of pretrial release asking the court to reduce the amount of bond.

         At a hearing on the motion, the court agreed to reduce the bond. As the court was preparing to announce the modified bond conditions, the State asked the court to require Defendant to show that the source of funds used to post bond was not derived from illegal activity.[1] The court stated, "I thought you would, I was going to address that in a moment."

         After hearing argument from defense counsel, who contended that the money would come from family members, the court agreed that the requirement was appropriate. The judge indicated that, if the money was coming from family, "that's fine" and suggested Defendant's family could submit an affidavit to satisfy the requirement. The court reduced the amount of bond to a total of $138, 000 and entered an order requiring Defendant to demonstrate that the funds were from a "legitimate source." Defense counsel later lodged an objection referencing unspecified "conflict" in caselaw.

         This petition follows. Defendant argues: (1) the court erred in granting the State's oral motion to impose the bond source condition where the State had not filed a written motion to modify bond conditions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(d)(2); and (2) detention based on the bond source condition is not authorized by Florida law. Nothing in the record indicates that Defendant has tried to post the bond or satisfy the bond source condition.

         Defendant fails to show any error in the trial court imposing the bond source condition. Defendant filed a motion to modify bond and had constructive notice that the court would consider all the statutory pretrial release factors if his motion was granted. See § 903.046(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (setting out factors that the court shall consider when determining pretrial release conditions).

         Section 903.046(2)(f) requires a court setting pretrial release conditions to consider:

The source of funds used to post bail or procure an appearance bond, particularly whether the proffered funds, real property, property, or any proposed collateral or bond premium may be linked to or derived from the crime alleged to have been committed or from any other criminal or illicit activities. The burden of establishing the noninvolvement in or nonderivation from criminal or other illicit activity of such proffered funds, real property, property, or any proposed ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.