Court Opinion

ID: 9959627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 14:03:19.721443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:21.477099
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                        SECOND DISTRICT

                              DINO SARAC,

                                Petitioner,

                                     v.

           BOB GAULTIERI, SHERIFF OF PINELLAS COUNTY,

                               Respondent.

                              No. 2D24-338

                              April 12, 2024

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Circuit Court for Pinellas
County; Elizabeth Zuroweste, Acting Circuit Judge.

Peter Chan, Clearwater, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Dempsey,
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

     Dino Sarac has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenging his detention after the revocation of his pretrial release. See
Simeus v. Rambosk, 100 So. 3d 2, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ("A petition for
writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle to challenge an order of
pretrial detention."). We deny the petition as moot because Sarac
entered a plea and was sentenced soon after he filed his petition.
However, we write to explain why we would have granted the petition had
it not been mooted.
     In 2022, Sarac was arrested for possession of methamphetamine
and trespass. He posted bond in case number 22-CF-7648 and was
released. This case was assigned to Judge Siracusa.
     In 2024, Sarac was arrested for driving with a suspended license,
and the case was assigned to Judge Zuroweste. At first appearance,
Judge Zuroweste announced that her assistant had talked to Judge
Siracusa and he had asked that she revoke Sarac's bond in case number
22-CF-7648. Judge Zuroweste stated for the record:
     [A]t the direction of Judge Siracusa whose case this is, date of
     offense August 8, 2023 with a new charge on January 29th in
     which probable cause is found, at his request as the trial
     Judge under 903.0471 and 3.131(d) in the Criminal Rules of
     Procedure, I'm revoking Mr. Sarac's bond at the request of
     Judge Siracusa.
Judge Zuroweste left Sarac's bond in the new case undisturbed.
     Sarac and the State agree that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.131(d) does not provide authority for Judge Zuroweste's revocation of
Sarac's bond upon Judge Siracusa's request. Indeed, rule 3.131(d)(1)
does not authorize the assigned trial judge to ask the first appearance
judge to modify bail:
     No judge or 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

                                     2
     (D) is the first appearance judge and was authorized by the
     judge initially setting or denying bail to modify or set
     conditions of release.
     The State argues that Judge Siracusa exercised his ultimate
authority over Sarac's bond by requesting that Judge Zuroweste revoke
it. See Johnson v. State, 277 So. 3d 123, 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
("When a defendant violates pretrial release conditions, the statutes and
rules of criminal procedure vest the judge having trial jurisdiction with
the ultimate authority to revoke an existing bond and order
commitment."); see also § 903.0471, Fla. Stat. (2023) (providing that a
trial court may on its own motion revoke pretrial release if it finds
probable cause to believe the defendant committed a new offense while
on pretrial release); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131(g) ("The court in which the
cause is pending may direct the arrest and commitment of the defendant
who is at large on bail when . . . there has been a breach of the
undertaking . . . ."). But the Florida Constitution authorizes the supreme
court to "adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts." Art. V,
§ 2(a), Fla. Const. Rule 3.131(d)(1)(D) only provides for the judge who
initially set bail to authorize the first appearance judge to modify or set
conditions of release; it says nothing about the assigned trial judge
authorizing the first appearance judge in a subsequent case involving the
defendant to revoke bail in the defendant's prior, assigned case. And
Judge Zuroweste's comments in honoring Judge Siracusa's request to
revoke Sarac's bond reveal that Judge Siracusa's request was not the
equivalent of the exercise of his authority as the trial judge to revoke
bond—Judge Zuroweste, not Judge Siracusa, made a finding that there
was probable cause to believe that Sarac had committed a new offense
while on pretrial release that justified the revocation of his bond.
     Petition denied as moot.

                                      3
CASANUEVA, KELLY, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      4