RAYMOND ELLIS TAYLOR, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND DON R. MORELAND AS SHERIFF OF MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE HONORABLE WALLACE E. STURGIS, JR., AS JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Taylor petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a pretrial bail denial in a capital case. The court held that while persons accused of non-capital crimes are entitled to bail as a matter of right, persons accused of capital or life imprisonment crimes may be admitted to bail within the sound discretion of the trial court, and remanded for the judge to conduct further proceedings or reconsider the bail decision.
Persons accused of non-capital crimes are entitled to bail as a matter of right. However, persons accused of capital and life imprisonment crimes may be admitted to bail in the sound discretion of the trial court judge or committing magistrate, even where the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.
[1] Persons accused of capital offenses or offenses punishable by life imprisonment are entitled to bail only in the sound discretion of the trial court judge or committing m…
[2] A magistrate has discretion to admit persons accused of capital crimes to bail even when the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“that persons accused of capital and life imprisonment crimes may be admitted to bail, in the sound discretion of the trial court judge, or committing magistrate”
Establishes the holding that capital defendants are not automatically denied bail but may receive it within judicial discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor was charged with a capital crime and the trial judge denied him pretrial bail, finding that the proof of the defendant's guilt was evident and …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pretrial Bail cases and more on FLexlaw
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.
By petition for writ of habeas corpus a review is sought of an order denying pretrial bail in a capital case. The judge below found “that the proof of the defendant’s guilt in this case is evident and the presumption is great that the defendant committed the acts as charged in the indictment.”
In denying bail the judge below apparently did not consider the case of Arthur v. Harper, 371 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In that case it was held that the magistrate does have discretion to admit persons accused of capital crimes to bail even though the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great. We agree with the reasoning in that case and hold that only persons accused of non-capital crimes are entitled to bail as a matter of right; but that persons accused of capital and life imprisonment crimes may be admitted to bail, in the sound discretion of the trial court judge, or committing magistrate.1
In order to allow the trial judge to enter his complete findings or to conduct such further hearings as he may deem appropriate, we relinquish jurisdiction and remand this cause to the trial court for twenty days. Upon the completion of any hearing, or upon reconsideration without further hearing, the trial judge should submit his findings and his order for our further review to determine whether to issue the writ.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur. . “Until adjudged guilty, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to release on reasonable bail with sufficient surety unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.” Section 14, article I, Constitution of the State of Florida.
“Offenses Less Than Capital. All persons in custody for the commission of an offense unless it is a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great shall be entitled as of right to be admitted to bail before conviction. After conviction bail may be granted by either the trial or appellate court.” Rule 3.130(a), Fla.R.Crim.P.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gomez v. The Honorable Harry G. Hinckley, Jr., 473 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…983, this section provided that, with rare exception, only persons charged with capital offenses or offenses punishable by life imprisonment could be denied release on bail. See Gardner v. Murphy, 402 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Taylor v. State, 388 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Cheatham v. Novell, 382 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 389 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1980). Persons accused of all other crimes “enjoy[ed] the right to release on reasonable bail until the moment of adjudication.” Cheatham v.…
-
Hancock v. State, 386 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…rged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.1 Therefore, the right to bail prior to trial of one accused of a non-capital crime is absolute. Taylor v. State, 388 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Matera v. Buchanan, 192 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). This constitutional right to bail may be forfeited where a defendant’s conduct evinces a flagrant disregard of the court’s authority or effort to evade its processes. See Ex…
Authorities Cited
- Arthur v. The Honorable Carl H. Harper, 371 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)