Title: State of Florida V. James J. Norris, Jr.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC96-401
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: September 28, 2000

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC96401
____________
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Petitioner,
vs.
JAMES J. NORRIS, JR., et al.
Respondents.
[September 28, 2000]
WELLS, C.J.
We have for review Norris v. State, 737 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999),
which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in McCoy v. State, 702 So.
2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.
Const.
The relevant facts of this case as set forth in the Fifth District’s opinion are
as follows:
The Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit issued
administrative order A99-6, which authorizes the judge who issues a
2
capias or warrant to establish the amount of bond and prohibits any
modification of the bond amount by any other judge without the
consent of the issuing judge.  Thereafter, an arrest warrant was issued
by Circuit Judge Springstead for the arrest of the petitioner.  Judge
Springstead set the amount of bail in the warrant at $20,000 without
authorization for the first appearance judge to modify the bond
amount.  At first appearance, County Judge Hyslop determined that
under the circumstances $1,500 would be a reasonable bond. 
However, Judge Hyslop was not authorized to modify the bond under
administrative order A99-6. . . .
[Norris’s] bond was subsequently reduced to $1,000 by the
assigned judge, Judge Tombrink, upon a motion for bond reduction.
Norris, 737 So. 2d at 1241.
The Fifth District accepted certiorari to review the administrative order, even
though the issue was moot as to Norris, because the question presented was
capable of repetition yet evaded review.  The Fifth District quashed the
administrative order.  We approve the decision of the Fifth District.
This case requires an interpretation of several current Florida Rules of
Criminal Procedure to determine whether a judge issuing an arrest warrant may
preclude the first appearance judge from modifying the endorsed bail conditions on
the arrest warrant.  Rule 3.121(a)(7) requires that an arrest warrant, when issued,
shall “in all offenses bailable as of right be endorsed with the amount of bail and the
return date.”  Fla. R. Crim. P. 3121(a)(7) (emphasis added).  As stated by the Fifth
District, the purpose of this bail endorsement is to enable the arresting officer to
3
accept proper bail without the necessity of contacting the judge to fix the amount of
the bond.
Rule 3.130(a) requires that an accused be afforded a first appearance before
a judicial officer within twenty-four hours of arrest.  Rule 3.131(b)(2) states:
The judge shall at the defendant’s first appearance consider all
available relevant factors to determine what form of release is
necessary to assure the defendant’s appearance.  If a monetary bail is
required, the judge shall determine the amount.
Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131(b)(2) (emphasis added.)
Rule 3.131(d), entitled “Subsequent Application for Setting or Modification
of Bail,” limits the authority to certain judges who may subsequently amend a bail
determination.  The pertinent portion of the rule states:
(1) When a judicial officer not possessing trial jurisdiction
orders a defendant held to answer before a court having jurisdiction to
try the defendant, and bail has been denied or sought to be modified,
application by motion may be made to the court having jurisdiction to
try the defendant or, in the absence of the judge of the trial court, to
the circuit court.  The motion shall be determined promptly.  No judge
of a court of equal or inferior jurisdiction may modify or set a
condition of release, unless the judge:
(A) imposed the conditions of bail or set the
amount of bond required;
(B) is the chief judge of the circuit in which the
defendant is to be tried;
(C) has been assigned to preside over the criminal
trial of the defendant; or
(D) is the first appearance judge and was
4
authorized by the judge initially setting or denying bail to
modify or set conditions of release.
Fla. Rule of Crim. P. 3.131(d)(1).
The State contends that the chief judge’s administrative order should be
upheld as consistent with the Rules of Criminal Procedure.  This interpretation
requires that rule 3.121(a)(7) be read to mean that the endorsement of the bail
amount on the arrest warrant is the initial setting of bail.  Under this reading, the first
appearance before a judge for a person arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant
would, in actuality, be a subsequent modification hearing governed by rule
3.131(d)(1).  Then pursuant to subdivision (d)(1)(D) of that rule, the first
appearance judge would be precluded from modifying the bail amount endorsed on
the arrest warrant if the issuing judge failed to authorize the first appearance judge
to modify the bail conditions.  See Fla. Rule of Crim. P. 3.131(d)(1)(D).
We do not agree with this reading of the rules.  The endorsement of bail on
the arrest warrant is an ex parte proceeding done for the purpose of allowing the
arrested person to post bail without the necessity of waiting until the first
appearance before a judicial officer, which must occur within twenty-four hours of
arrest.  This procedure is not intended to substitute for either the arrested person’s
appearance before the first appearance judge or the opportunity to present reasons
1In view of this inconsistency, we request that The Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules
Committee review the rules regarding first appearance as well as the rules that govern the issuance of arrest
warrants and capiases and report to us whether the limitation on first appearance judges in respect to capias
5
for other forms of release as expressly provided by rule 3.131(b)(2).  Nor is the
endorsement of a bail amount on the arrest warrant intended to limit the first
appearance judge’s discretion in applying rule 3.131(b)(2).
We acknowledge that our holding makes the procedure with respect to
modification of the form of release for persons arrested on an arrest warrant
inconsistent with the procedure for persons arrested on a capias issued pursuant to
rule 3.131(j).  Rule 3.131(j) states in relevant part:
Upon the filing of the indictment or information, the judge shall
endorse the amount of bail, if any, and may authorize the setting or
modification of bail by the judge presiding over the defendant’s first
appearance hearing.  This endorsement shall be made on the capias
and signed by the judge.
Fla. Rule of Crim. P. 3.131(j).
The express language of this rule gives the issuing capias judge the authority
to limit the setting or modification of bail by the first appearance judge.  There is, of
course, a significant difference between an arrest warrant and a capias in that a
capias may only issue after formal charges are levied via indictment or information,
which requires the involvement of either the grand jury or a sworn statement by the
State Attorney.1
is necessary and appropriate.  In this report, we request that the Committee consider the impact of the
victims’ rights provision, article 1, section 16(b) of the Florida Constitution, when making its
recommendation.
6
Therefore, we approve the result reached in Norris v. State, 737 So. 2d 1240
(Fla. 5th DCA 1999), and disapprove McCoy v. State, 702 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1997), to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Direct Conflict
Fifth District - Case No. 5D99-957 
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Belle B. Schumann, Assistant
Attorney General, 
for Petitioner
Howard H. Babb, Public Defender, and Elizabeth Osmond, Assistant Public
Defender, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Brooksville, Florida; and A. R. Mander, III of
Murphy, Dwyer & Morris, Dade City, Florida, on behalf of Hon. Peyton Hyslop,
for Respondents
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Phil Patterson, Assistant Public Defender,
Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida,
7
for the Florida Public Defender Association, Amicus Curiae