Long rumored, the issue of a client getting a bond in Broward has been most Miami lawyers' white whale. We hear of the existence of a bond for a client, but we rarely see one.
It was not that long ago when we appeared before Judge XXX on a bond motion on a marijuana trafficking case. After making us wait until the end of the calendar (naturally) he looked at the motion, heard from the prosecution (who naturally objected) and promptly doubled the bond amount, commenting that "bonds are like elevators- they can go up or down".
Wise words from a Broward judicial hack. Postscript to the story is that upon the retaining of a local lawyer as co-counsel, the bond was reduced to the amount we initially requested. And most Miami lawyers have similar Broweird stories.
Attached is the new Broward Bond schedule. Maybe it's the absence of former State Attorney Satz "(Motto: "NO BOND FOR YOU" (see below) ), but the schedule appears reasonable.
Bond Broward by Anonymous PbHV4H on Scribd
Rumpole Bly you can answer the existential questions of our era - is soup a meal ???
ReplyDeleteThat Seinfeld episode is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteSoup is not a meal.
ReplyDeleteSoup is a meal.
ReplyDeleteNo standard bond for a routine DUI? WTF?! They must be held for an appearance before a magistrate? That means most simple DUI arrestees will sit in jail for 2 days. Did Broward forget all their judges who were arrested for DUI?
ReplyDeleteNow they should address the ridiculous process in Broward of issuing warrants every time the prosecutors change the charges. It happens almost every time and is a major waste of time. Plus people who bond out routinely get rearrested on these warrants and have to post bonds two times.....
ReplyDeleteJust in case any of your readers thinks the elevator analogy has any basis in law:
ReplyDeleteThe petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The trial court abused its discretion when it sua sponte increased petitioner's bond in this case to more than $1 million. Montgomery v. Jenne, 744 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cousino v. Jenne, 717 So.2d 599, 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Bowers v. Jenne, 710 So.2d 681, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Flemming v. Cochran, 694 So.2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Petitioner was not given notice that his bond on three charges, to wit: solicitation to commit armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and loitering and prowling, would be subject to increase at the hearing on petitioner's motion to set bond on the charge of attempted armed robbery.
Sueliman v. Jenne, 935 So. 2d 120, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Taglimonte v. State, 126 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).