You seem to harbor some sort of belief that a person a cannot be held for any period whatsoever without setting of a bond... but that just isn't how it works.  That would mean no one could ever be arrested unless a warrant had first issued with a bond amount set.  

There is a procedure in Florida for setting a motion a bond motion on calendar. I don't practice there so I don't have a clue what that might be. But generally that sort of thing involves the lawyer requesting the court clerk to put the matter on calendar. I'm guessing that if Zimmerman turned himself on Sunday, the matter could have been put on calendar on the following Tuesday.

O'Mara chose not to do that. As I've said, I fully understand what his problem was, and why he made that choice. But basically Zimmerman has been sitting in jail the past 3 or 4 weeks or however long it has been because his own lawyer didn't put a bail motion on calendar.

The way I've been taking your remarks, it isn't pretrial detention unless the no-bond order runs the entire duration from the order until the trial.  The way I've been taking your definition of pretrial detention, if defendant is held without bail, as Zimmerman is now, it is NOT pretrial detention, because there is no order that says the condition of no bail is persistent to the trial.

Although we agree with Houser that a trial court has the authority to revoke a defendant's bond under pretrial release rules allowing arrest and recommitment for bond violations, and pursuant to the court's inherent power to enforce its own orders, we disagree that a trial court has the absolute discretion to deny bond unless a defendant meets the criteria for detention without bond under the pretrial detention statutes. By breaching a condition of the bond originally set by the court, a defendant forfeits the right to continued release under the terms of that bond. However, the defendant does not forfeit his or her constitutionally guaranteed right to bail altogether; a refusal to readmit a defendant to any bail at all must be subject to the limitations of the pretrial detention statute.

On June 1, Zimmerman was ordered to turn himself in within 48 hours, and be held in detention without bond.  BTW, I don't know of any evidence or assertion that Zimmerman breached a condition of bond.  That aside, I read the above as distinguishing the money interest (the bond) from the liberty interest (held without bond).  In your 12:41:36 AM EST, you recapitulate the right to revoke bond part, the money interest part.  What about the liberty interest part?

I read that as circumscribing the court's power to detain without bail, and requiring that the court adhere to the pretrial detention statutes in an order that detains without bail.

Is it your take that "revoke bond" is shorthand for an order that recites "Defendant ordered held on a no bond status until further order of the Court," and that if the order is thus, it is not pretrial detention (without bail)?  That if the Court orders pretrial detention, the order will recite something like "Defendant ordered held on a no bond status until trial."

My take of Paul is that it admits a court to tinker with the money interest, that is, the order can say "The defendant's bond is hereby revoked." and that recitation, without more, does not impact defendant's liberty interest, and so revocation, standing alone, does not trigger the material in 907.046, and Rule 3.132.

I don't disagree that Zimmerman's case is unusual, and I don't disagree that an error below is essential condition precedent to filing an appeal.  The question we are debating is whether or not Lester order comports with the controlling legal authority.

Stepping back to the general question of bond revocation, post pretrial release, I can imagine lies by defendant that justify revocation of bond and imposition of a no bond order.  For example, claiming to live in Florida and having ties there, when in fact defendant lives in another state, or even in another country.  Totally non-financial, and changes the application of law - trivially easy to find "flight risk" in that situation.

You are correct that there are all sorts of cases where judges have revoked bail, and that order has been appealed.  The Paul case is an example, I linked to a couple others on this page.  In every case, the appellate court directed the court below to apply 907.041.  In short, I have found on-point appellate cases, although I agree that none of them deal with what the court finds to be a material misrepresentation of financial status in a pretrial release hearing.

You are a defense lawyer, and I find it interesting that you don't directly counter the cites and argument of your opponent in argument.  I assume that you too handle motions differently in court, and that in a trial or appeal setting, you argue from legal authority.

The statute does not allow the trial court to deny release solely on a finding that the defendant violated a condition of bond. Buhbut v. Bieluch, 835 So.2d 1222,1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Murphy III v. Lamberti (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)

Petitioner asserts that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion to revoke bond ... We agree and grant the writ.

Metzger v. Cochran (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)

We conclude that the detention order was unlawful.

Bush v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) [This is the case where the state agreed to pretrial release, then changed its mind the same day]