VERDICT WATCH FL - Doug Benefield, 58, shot and killed by estranged wife, Manatee County, 27 Sept 2020

[MTW2011]

Where was mom?? Is that who she was scribbling a note to?

Someone in the gallery said she heard her tell her attorney to give the note she wrote to her child, FWIW.

 

[Wishbone]

I meant to quote the user asking if she would stay out on bond…While the defense argued for that, in the alternative they asked the Judge to write an Order / state in the record the reasons for bail revocation. They said this was because they would be appealing that to the 2nd District, like they did with another decision of his back on 07/18

At the very end, post reading of verdict & taking her into custody, defense attorney Taylor asked the Judge, well he said he “trusted” that the Judge would be issuing the written Order (for the purposes I mentioned above). The Judge responded that he would and after a pause, after a deputy started speaking to Taylor, the Judge then added in “if it’s required”. Watching the video playback I can’t even tell if Taylor heard that, as the deputy was talking to him at that very moment. IMOO the Judge won’t be in a rush to write that Order and if it’s not actually required than he may not do it at all. We may see the issue brought up again, should the court docket for the case become public again, as it is clear the defense wants to appeal the bail revocation. JMOO

Most appeals go nowhere

 

[ilovewings]

Possibly, but she had to get her made up story out there and testifying was the only way. The over the top dramatics were just too much and showed how phony and unbelievable the testimony was. I'm just so pleased right now after watching her being handcuffed and led away. Not a tear in sight over the verdict. That was the real ab.

Yep--she put on the performance of a lifetime believing it would get her acquitted

 

[MTW2011]

Most appeals go nowhere

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable and logical opinion as to why the Judge should deny the simple written order the defense is asking for. Perhaps the Judge will adopt that thinking when he decides to not write it at all (if he chooses that, which seems likely IMOO unless defense comes up with a statute that says it’s required) JMO

 

[Wishbone]

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable and logical opinion as to why the Judge should deny the simple written order the defense is asking for. Perhaps the Judge will adopt that thinking when he decides to not write it at all (if he chooses that, which seems likely IMOO unless defense comes up with a statute that says it’s required) JMO

Don't understand what you are saying. Most appeals are not approved afaik.

I
n 2010, an estimated 69,348 criminal appeals
were resolved in the 143 appellate courts with
criminal jurisdiction in the United States. Nearly
two-thirds (63%) of appeals were reviewed on the
merits of the case, and a majority (81%) of these
appeals upheld or affirmed the trial court decision

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/casc.pdf

 

[MTW2011]

Don't understand what you are saying. Most appeals are not approved afaik.

I apologize, I will try to be more concise. The defense asked the Judge to write a simple Order so they could appeal pending sentencing. He already stated his order verbally, so it would just need to be in written form for what the defense asked.

Judge said he would do that and then followed it up with “if it’s required”. AFAIK it isn’t required by state law so he isn’t required to make the Order in writing, and without that the defense cannot file their appeal. And if it’s “not” required, it doesn’t seem likely to me that this Judge will just do what they want especially with knowing it’s going to be used to appeal his ruling. JMOO

 

[Wishbone]

I apologize, I will try to be more concise. The defense asked the Judge to write a simple Order so they could appeal pending sentencing. He already stated his order verbally, so it would just need to be in written form for what the defense asked.

Judge said he would do that and then followed it up with “if it’s required”. AFAIK it isn’t required by state law so he isn’t required to make the Order in writing, and without that the defense cannot file their appeal. And if it’s “not” required, it doesn’t seem likely to me that this Judge will just do what they want especially with knowing it’s going to be used to appeal his ruling. JMOO

I was just replying to the issue of the number of appeals, not all the that other stuff. I don't know when or if or what the judge has to do or will do.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I apologize, I will try to be more concise. The defense asked the Judge to write a simple Order so they could appeal pending sentencing. He already stated his order verbally, so it would just need to be in written form for what the defense asked.

Judge said he would do that and then followed it up with “if it’s required”. AFAIK it isn’t required by state law so he isn’t required to make the Order in writing, and without that the defense cannot file their appeal. And if it’s “not” required, it doesn’t seem likely to me that this Judge will just do what they want especially with knowing it’s going to be used to appeal his ruling. JMOO

I may be confused but are you asserting that the judge is unfairly obstructing appeal rights?

 

[Wishbone]

 

[MTW2011]

I may be confused but are you asserting that the judge is unfairly obstructing appeal rights?

Uh not at all.
I’m saying he said he would write the Order for the defense and then after said “if it’s required”.

It’s not required, so if he doesn’t write it there’s nothing they can do. I’m not saying that’s wrong (or right), I was saying merely that the defense was seeking a written order that would capture what he already said in Court. Now, if he doesn’t write that order and that causes the defense to be unable to appeal the bond revocation decision, that’s just the net effect of it all IMOO. But even if that happens, I was NOT saying he was obstructing appeal rights whatsoever. Thx for allowing me to clarify

 

[nodamselindistress]

Uh not at all.
I’m saying he said he would write the Order for the defense and then after said “if it’s required”.

It’s not required, so if he doesn’t write it there’s nothing they can do. I’m not saying that’s wrong (or right), I was saying merely that the defense was seeking a written order that would capture what he already said in Court. Now, if he doesn’t write that order and that causes the defense to be unable to appeal the bond revocation decision, that’s just the net effect of it all IMOO. But even if that happens, I was NOT saying he was obstructing appeal rights whatsoever. Thx for allowing me to clarify

ok i misunderstood

 

[nodamselindistress]

As I understand it her mother has temporary custody of the child. I hope there is a suit about future custody of the child since she has been seen holding signs about keeping her mommy free.

 

[ch_13]

I apologize, I will try to be more concise. The defense asked the Judge to write a simple Order so they could appeal pending sentencing. He already stated his order verbally, so it would just need to be in written form for what the defense asked.

Judge said he would do that and then followed it up with “if it’s required”. AFAIK it isn’t required by state law so he isn’t required to make the Order in writing, and without that the defense cannot file their appeal. And if it’s “not” required, it doesn’t seem likely to me that this Judge will just do what they want especially with knowing it’s going to be used to appeal his ruling. JMOO

I think you misunderstood the judge. The defense lawyer was pointing out a written order is required as per Younghans v. State and the judge replied, "if it's required, I certainly will."

Here's the relevant case:

Rule 3.691 - POST-TRIAL RELEASE, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.691 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 3.691 - POST-TRIAL RELEASE, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.691, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

(b) Written Findings. In any case in which the court has the discretion to release the defendant pending review of the conviction and, after the defendant's conviction, denies release, it shall state in writing its reasons for the denial.

Regardless, as AB's lawyer conceded during his argument, she was convicted of a serious crime and is facing a long sentence. I don't see any appeals court reversing the trial judge on this, they would only do so if he erred on a matter of law. But he's on excellent legal ground to deny her bond and remand her into custody, and I daresay that pretty much every judge would do likewise.

 

[geevee]

Eva Benefield after the verdict:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1818504532025876908

 

[MTW2011]

I found some more recent cases that cited this as well (brief summary by me) for anyone else interested. Note- sorry I can’t link to a few of these cases as they are part of paid legal subscription database sites I use. I also only did a quick cursory search so this is fairly limited but I wanted to share.

1) 2020 case, Rodell Burton v State of FL; case 19-CF-1394 // defendant was found guilty, his defense asked for bond to remain pending sentencing, Judge denied. They appealed, appellate court ruled that “The trial court's order does not "state in writing its reasons for the denial" of the motion. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.691(b). The transcript of the December 11, 2020, hearing does not reflect that the trial court considered the criteria for post-trial release set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.691(a) and Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1956), when reaching its decision. Within five days, the trial court shall reconsider the appellant's amended emergency motion for supersedeas/appeal bond.”

2) 2022 case, Richard Johnston v State of FL. Case 2021CF000174 // Defendant found guilty, defense sought bail/bond, Judge denied. They appealed, appellate Court ruled “This case is remanded to conduct a hearing and reconsider the appellant's motion for post-trial release, providing analysis as to the Youghans factors should the trial court find this appeal was taken in good faith.”

3) 2020 case, Wesley Brackin v State of FL; case 2D20-2650 // the defendant found guilty, defense motioned for a stay of the sentence; Judge denied. They appealed, appellate court ruled “The motion for review is granted. The trial court's order denying the appellant's motion for stay of sentence and motion for supersedeas bond is reversed. Neither the trial court's order nor the transcript of the December 21, 2020, hearing reflect that the trial court considered the criteria for post-trial release set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.691(a) and Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1956). Within seven days, the trial court shall hold a hearing to reconsider the appellant's motion for stay of sentence and motion for supersedeas bond.”

TL;DR / short summary: I found 3 cases within the last 4 years that involved the case defense cited tonight in asking for her bond to remain and/or a stay. In these cases the appellate court ruled that the Judge/lower court did not consider the factors required for denying such a request and ordered the Court to go back and hold a hearing to reconsider what they previously summarily denied by the defense.

Does this mean that AB’s defense will be successful? Nope. But it does mean that the Court defense said they would appeal to, has already ruled in other cases that such a denial must have some specific findings or they’re going to send it right back for a hearing.

Hopefully the Judge will write this Order out and that would seemingly solve/avoid the appellate issues mentioned in the cases above.