MARTIN JAMES LAURICH, PAUL D. MCCANN, AND DANIEL EUGENE CURRIE, APPELLANTS,
v.
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 lacked jurisdiction to revoke supersedeas bonds pending appeal after the record and appellants' brief had been filed with the appellate court.
Appellants were released on supersedeas bonds pending appeal after pleading nolo contendere. The State moved to revoke the bonds, and the trial court …
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 Jurisdiction Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of an order revoking their supersedeas bonds pending appeal contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter such order. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, we agree and reverse.
Appellants, having pleaded nolo conten-dere to possession and importation of cannabis reserving their rights to appeal, were released on supersedeas bonds pending their appeal to this court, 376 So. 2d 405. The trial court granted the State’s motion to revoke the supersedeas bonds on the ground that appellants had not duly prosecuted their appeals. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.691(d)(1). At the time the order was entered, appellants’ brief had already been filed in this court. No motion to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court had been granted.
Since the record on appeal and appellants’ brief had been filed with this court, we agree that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the order revoking appellants’ supersedeas bond. Cf. Fla.R.App.P. 9.600. The cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
MILLS, C. J., and McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 401 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…a different context, it has been held that entitlement to bail pending appeal is a procedural matter amenable to court rule. See Bamber v. State, 300 So. 2d 269 (Fla.2d DCA 1974), cert. dismissed, 311 So. 2d 672 (Fla.1975). . Cf. Laurich v. State, 376 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) where the court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke bail pending appeal after the record on appeal and briefs had been filed with the appellate court.…
-
Peacock v. State, 798 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…isdiction to revoke the supersedeas bond since the record on appeal [*912] had not been transmitted to the appellate court at the time the court entered its order. See Taylor v. State, 401 So. 2d 811, 812, n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Laurich v. State, 376 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). . As the appeal has been perfected, any future motion to revoke bond should be filed in the appeal and made to this court, which could then determine whether relinquishment of jurisdiction to the trial court would be appropriat…
Authorities Cited
- Laurich v. State, 376 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)