Full Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D20-2583 _____________________________ JOHNATHAN L. SUMMERS, Petitioner, v. MIKE WILLIAMS, Sheriff of Duval County, Florida, Respondent. _____________________________ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction. April 8, 2021 PER CURIAM. Jonathan L. Summers petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his continued pretrial detention following the trial court’s denial of his motion to reinstate bond. See Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(3). We deny the petition. The State charged Summers with fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer and leaving the scene of an accident involving attended property in April 2017 in Jacksonville, Florida. The trial court found probable cause for his arrest and released him on bond. While out on bond, Summers failed to appear at a hearing on May 11, 2017, and the trial court issued a capias for his failure to appear. Two months later, the U.S. Marshals apprehended Summers in Tennessee on charges of attempted kidnapping with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and violation of an injunction for protection against domestic violence. The trial court then revoked his bond in the first case and ordered Summers to be held in pre-trial detention. Two years later, Summers moved the trial court to reinstate bond. At the evidentiary hearing on his motion, Summers called many witnesses who testified they believed that, if released on bond, Summers would appear at all court proceedings. These witnesses stated Summers would live either with family in north Georgia or in Crystal River, Florida. In response, the State argued: 1) the nature of the charges against Summers are very serious, including attempted armed kidnapping, which carries a 10-year mandatory minimum with a possible 30-year sentence; 2) Summers would be released outside the reach of the trial court’s jurisdiction and possibly outside the state of Florida; and 3) Summers has limited ties to the community. Regarding Summers’ mental condition, the State emphasized that he was examined by doctors who found him competent but noted some indicators of mental illness. In addition, the State argued Summers did not have a favorable history as Summers had failed to appear previously, and he committed new law violations while out on bond for which the State issued an arrest warrant. Summers previously fled the jurisdiction while released on bond and had to be apprehended by the U.S. Marshal Service in Monroe, Tennessee. He continued to violate the injunction by posting harassing videos while he fled the jurisdiction—all the while, on probation for a possession of cannabis conviction in Georgia. The trial court denied Summers’ motion to reinstate bond. In arriving at this decision, the trial court found that he was charged with serious crimes, including possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which did not require a victim to testify regarding his guilt. It also noted the length of possible sentences on the charged offenses. Regarding Summers’ claims that being held on 2 pretrial detention negatively impacted his ability to prepare a pro se defense, the trial court reminded Summers that he could assert his right to counsel at any time and have counsel represent him. A petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper method to seek review of an order regarding pretrial release. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131(d)(3). Petitioners seeking to challenge a trial court’s determination on bond must present evidence to overcome the presumption that the trial court’s order was correct. Hernandez v. Roth, 890 So. 2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“Because trial judges are in a superior position to determine what conditions will be required to ensure that the defendant will appear in future proceedings and that the defendant is not a risk to the community, a defendant seeking a writ of habeas corpus ‘must adduce evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s order.’” (quoting State ex rel. Smith v. Untreiner, 246 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971))). The purpose of a bail determination is to ensure a criminal defendant’s appearance at subsequent proceedings and to protect the community from the criminal defendant. § 903.046(1), Fla. Stat. (2020). Section 903.046 mandates the trial court consider specific factors when determining pretrial release. When determining whether to release a criminal defendant on bail, the trial court is required to consider the (i) nature and circumstances of the charged offense(s), (ii) weight of the evidence against the defendant, (iii) defendant’s family ties, length of residence in the community, employment history, financial resources, and mental condition, (iv) defendant’s past and present conduct such as any convictions, flight to avoid prosecution, or failure to appear at court proceedings, (v) defendant’s potential danger to the community, (vi) whether the defendant is already on probation, (vii) any potential danger to victims, and (viii) whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a new crime while on pretrial release. § 903.046(2). The trial court considered these factors in making its determination on the request for pretrial release. In this case, few if any of the applicable factors weigh in Summers’ favor. Summers has failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the 3 presumption of correctness of the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. PETITION DENIED. ROWE, M.K. THOMAS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Johnathan L. Summers, pro se, Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. 4