PHED SPENCER, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The trial court erred in denying a supersedeas bond application solely based on the potential maximum sentence for the crime, rather than considering the actual sentence and other factors.
Appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. The trial judge denied a motion for a supersedeas bond, believing bail w…
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 Bail Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
This is a petition for review of an order by the trial court denying appellant’s application for a supersedeas bond.
Appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to seven years imprisonment in the state prison. Following a timely, notice of appeal, the trial judge denied a motion for supersedeas bond, on the grounds that robbery is a crime which may be punished by life imprisonment and, even though the sentence was actually only seven years, the granting of bail was forbidden by Art. I, Section 14, of the Florida Constitution, F. S.A. and by CrRP 3.130(a), 33 F.S.A. The constitutional provision and the rule upon which the trial court relied provides a right to bail for all persons accused of a crime, prior to conviction, unless the charge is a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and “the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption is great.” Following conviction, bail is not a matter of right, but still lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Younghans v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 308.
We think the standards outlined in the Younghans case should be applied in the instant cause. Appellant was sentenced to only seven years imprisonment, and the court should consider bail in the light of the actual severity of the sentence as well as other circumstances relevant to the question of whether or not appellant is likely to flee the jurisdiction during the pendency of his appeal.
We have concluded that the trial court erred in ruling that it was precluded from considering the appellant’s application for bond because of Art. I, Section 14, of the Florida Constitution and the rule of criminal procedure. Therefore, the cause is remanded to the trial judge with directions to consider the application for bond. In the event that bond is denied, the trial court should state his reasons for denial in accordance with the Younghans case.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cheatham v. Novell, 382 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ital, may be released, pending review of the conviction, at the discretion of either the trial or appellate court, applying the principles enunciated in Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1956) . . Rule 3.691(a), Fla.R.Crim.P.; Spencer v. State, 284 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). For purposes of bail the continuum of a criminal prosecution passes through two phases — pre and post adjudication. In most instances during the first phase bail is obtainable as a matter of right; after adjudication it becomes…
Authorities Cited
- Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1956)