FRANK SMITH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-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 court held that bail after conviction is a matter of discretion and not a right, especially when prior appeals have been unsuccessful.
Appellant sought release on bail pending appeal of a denial of a motion for a new trial. Appellant had previously sought relief from his conviction wi…
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 Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant here contests a denial by the district judge, without a hearing, of a motion for release on bail pending final determination on appeal of a motion for new trial. (See Smith v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F. 2d 149 [No. 28,438]). We affirm the district court.
It is well established that bail after conviction in the trial court is a matter for the sound discretion of that court, and that a convicted appellant cannot demand bail as a matter of right. See, e. g., F.R.Crim.P. 46, Welsh v. Unit ed States, 5 Cir., 1968, 404 F. 2d 333; Christoffel v. United States, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 341, 196 F. 2d 560; Williamson v. United States, 2 Cir. 1950, 184 F. 2d 280. We think this principle is even more appropriate where, as here, at the time of the proceedings below, the appellant had already sought relief from his conviction without success all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States1 (Mr. Justice Marshall of that Court also denied appellant’s application for bail pending application for certiorari on August 15, 1969), and now begins a new series of attacks upon his conviction. Moreover, appellant’s request for bail pending appeal is diminished almost to the extent of extinction by our determination in case No. 28,438, Smith v. United States, supra, that the district court was not in error in denying the appellant’s motion for new trial.2
Affirmed.
. Smith v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 405 F. 2d 253, cert. denied 395 U.S. 977, 89 S.Ct. 2127, 23 L.Ed.2d 765.
. The sole vitality still inhering in the instant appeals is the possibility of certiorari being granted by the Supreme Court in No. 28,438.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Agrella v. The Honorable Leonard Rivkind, 404 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
-
In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Robert W. Beverly v. United States, 468 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Laszlo Kopacsi, 540 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Gurleski v. United States, 405 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Polson v. Idaho, 395 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1969)
- Smith v. United States, 395 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1969)
- Williamson v. United States, 184 F.2d 280 (2d Cir. 1950)
- Welsh v. United States, 404 F.2d 333 (5th Cir. 1968)
- United States v. Smith, 433 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Christoffel v. United States, 196 F.2d 560 (D.C. Cir. 1951)