GRIFFIN V. MCCRAY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2004 WILLIE GRIFFIN, ** Petitioner, vs. ** ** CHARLES McRAY, Director, MiamiDade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department; THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. CASE NO. 3D04-3099 ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 04-34460 ** Opinion filed December 14, 2004. A Case of Original Jurisdiction Habeas Corpus. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner. and Thomas Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General and Glaid, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents. Regnier, Douglas J. Before GREEN, WELLS, and SHEPHERD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus challenging the trial court s sua sponte order revoking his pretrial release and incarcerating him with a $100,000 bond for drug purchase and possession charges. We grant the petition. The trial court was without authority to increase the bond on its own motion. (Fla. 4th DCA Montgomery v. Jenee, 744 So. 2d 1148, 1149 1999). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(d)(2) permits the state to apply for modification of bail by showing good cause and with at least three (3) hours notice to the attorney for the defendant. Here, the state never sought a modification of the pretrial release conditions nor did the state establish that revoking the petitioner s pretrial release conditions and an increase in bail was warranted because of information not available to the committing magistrate setting the initial pretrial release conditions. Thus, habeas corpus is granted to the extent that the petitioner is ordered released from jail and restored to the terms of pretrial services release supervision as initially ordered. See Sikes v. McMillian, 564 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Kelsey v. McMillian, 560 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See also Blount v. Spears, 779 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Habeas corpus granted. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.