Implications of the Anti-Murder Act for Local Courts and Attorneys
By Jowita Wysocka
Despite the estimated $270 million price tag, most of which consists of the cost of building and furnishing new prison facilities, the Florida legislature unanimously passed SB 146, the “Anti-Murder Act” (AMA) in March. The bill was signed by Governor Charlie Crist on March 12, 2007 and went into effect the same day. Even before the law’s rapid passage, the local judiciary had a comprehensive plan in place to handle the anticipated influx of arrests and inmates and to comply with the new notification and database maintenance requirements. Local criminal defense attorneys also began preparing themselves for a spike in violation of probation cases.
The AMA is the initiative of Governor Crist and requires that certain offenders who violate probation be held in jail until there is a hearing to determine whether they should be released on bail. For certain offenders with a repeated history of violent crimes, the judge must also determine whether the individual poses a danger to the community. While the legislative intent was apparently to focus on violent offenders, a consequence of the new law is that a defendant who is on probation for any felony act but who has a qualifying offense in his past is also subject to the AMA.
The AMA continues to draw criticism about its high prison costs and unproven effectiveness. When the Department of Corrections adopted a “zero-tolerance policy” for all probation violations following the murder of Carlie Brucia in 2004, it created an enormous strain on the state and local criminal justice systems. Under that policy, probation and law enforcement officers were given the discretion to arrest, but a judge could issue a bond the next day and allow them to remain free. By contrast, the AMA removes the courts’ ability to issue these bonds. Therefore, while the AMA arguably narrows the focus of the previous “zero-tolerance policy” to primarily violent probation violators, it will nevertheless “increase the burden on the court and prison systems,” says J.S. Lucas Fleming, a former state prosecutor who is now a criminal defense attorney at the Fleming Law Group in St. Petersburg.
Last year, approximately one out of every four new cases received by Fleming’s firm included violations of probation and house arrest. Fleming and his associates have seen firsthand the strain on the system created when the zero-tolerance policy was adopted in 2004, and they anticipate an even greater burden on the system when the AMA goes into effect. As Fleming observed,
Scope of the Anti-Murder Act
In addition to creating two new criminal statutes, the AMA amends and re-enacts several existing ones. Its overriding purpose is to prevent future violent crimes by imposing stricter mandates on alleged probation or community control violations by:
The term “violent felony offender of special concern” (VFOSC) applies to individuals who are on felony probation or community control for committing certain offenses, including murder, kidnapping, aggravated or sexual battery, robbery, arson, stalking, aircraft piracy, and computer pornography. § 903.0351, F.S.
Bail, Hearing and Sentencing
The most significant provision in the AMA provides that individuals falling under any of these three categories must remain in custody and shall not be granted bail or any other form of pretrial release until there is a hearing. §§ 903.0351; 948.06(4)(d)-(e), F.S. In the case of VFOSC offenders, the judge also must determine whether the individual poses a danger to the community. Neither the “no bond” requirement nor the hearing requirement applies to probation or community control violations based solely on the failure to pay costs, fines, or restitution.
If, after the hearing, the court determines that a VFOSC has committed a violation of probation or community control (other than a failure to pay costs, fines, or restitution), § 948.06(4)(e)(2)(a) requires that the court revoke probation and sentence the offender up to the statutory maximum.
“Qualifying Offense” Defined
Under the amended § 948.06, F.S., a “qualifying offense” is any of the following*:
The AMA also now imposes certain notification requirements on the Department of Corrections, the appropriate county, the courts, and the state attorney or prosecutor with regard to an individual’s status as a VFOSC. Specifically, § 948.064, F.S. requires the Department of Corrections to develop a system for identifying the offenders in its database and post a listing of all VFOSCs under community supervision on the Department of Law Enforcement’s Criminal Justice Intranet.
Additionally, the county where the arrested person is booked must now provide the court with the information it needs to proceed with the hearing. The court, in turn, is required to assist the Department by creating and maintaining an automated system to provide the information listed in the previous paragraph to the court with the jurisdiction to conduct the hearing. Finally, the state attorney or statewide prosecutor must advise the court at each critical stage in the judicial process as to whether an alleged or convicted offender falls under one of the three categories of offenses created by the AMA, as well as whether the person was arrested for committing a qualifying offense.
In light of the increased number of hearings, inmates, and administrative requirements imposed by the AMA, local attorneys, courts, and jails are bracing themselves. Although Governor Crist is prepared to provide the necessary funds to accommodate the increase in jail beds, jail personnel, probation officers, and judges, critics are skeptical that the state will be able to meet the demands created by the new law. “All in all, the system will surely be burdened even more than it was in 2003,” says Fleming.
© 2007 The Fleming Law Group – All rights reserved.
Home | Getting Started | Practice Areas | Meet the Team | Fees | Offices | Contact | News | Resources
Any information obtained from this website should not be taken as legal advice. Contacting Fleming Law Group through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send us any personal or confidential information by e-mail until you receive written confirmation from a member of this firm that an attorney-client relationship has been established. At no time should you act upon the basis of any matter or information contained within this site without first seeking professional counsel.
Copyright 2005 Fleming Law Group