From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marmol v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 8, 1999
No. 99-2058 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sep. 8, 1999)

Opinion

No. 99-2058.

Opinion filed September 8, 1999.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Victoria Platzer, Judge; L.T. No. 97-16436.

Scott W. Sakin, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Jill K. Traina, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and SHEVIN, JJ.


On Motion For Review

Camilo Marmol seeks review of an order denying his motion for post-trial release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g)(4). We reverse.

Contrary to the trial court's statement at the hearing, the court had discretion to grant defendant post-trial release as defendant was not convicted of a crime listed in section 903.133, Florida Statutes. See Roberts v. State, 599 So.2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In addition, the trial court's summary denial does not provide reasons as required by Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.691(b). On remand, if the court is still disposed to deny the motion, the court must enter a written order containing appropriate findings. See Lynn v. State, 696 So.2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Buckhalter v. State, 416 So.2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for entry of an appropriate order within twenty days.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Marmol v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 8, 1999
No. 99-2058 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sep. 8, 1999)
Case details for

Marmol v. State

Case Details

Full title:CAMILO MARMOL, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Sep 8, 1999

Citations

No. 99-2058 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sep. 8, 1999)