GARY LEE COLLINS, APPELLANT,
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.
Appellant Collins appeals an order denying his motion for post-conviction release pending appeal of his sentence. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Rule 3.691 authorizes release only for those appealing convictions, not sentences alone.
A defendant appealing only the sentence, not the conviction, is not entitled to post-conviction release under Rule 3.691(a), which by its express terms applies only to persons challenging their conviction and asserting innocence or a right to a fair trial.
[1] A person adjudicated guilty of a non-capital offense may be released pending review of the conviction at the discretion of the trial or appellate court.
[2] A defendant appealing only the sentence imposed, as opposed to the conviction, is not entitled to post-conviction release under Rule 3.691, Florida Rules of Criminal Proc…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“All persons who have been adjudicated guilty of the commission of any offense, not capital, may be released, pending review of the conviction, at the discretion of either the trial court or appellate court.”
The text of Rule 3.691(a) showing it applies only to review of convictions, not sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCollins pleaded nolo contendere to charges without reserving the right to appeal. He was convicted and sentenced, then appealed only the sentence (a d…
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 Supersedeas Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion for post-conviction release pending appeal.1 Because the only permissible ground for appeal pertains to the propriety of the sentence imposed,2 the trial court found that Rule 3.691, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, did not authorize post-conviction release. We affirm.
Rule 3.691 provides, in pertinent part:
(a) All persons who have been adjudicated guilty of the commission of any offense, not capital, may be released, pending review of the conviction, at the discretion of either the trial court or appellate court.... [emphasis added]
Therefore, the circuit court found that one who appeals only a sentence, as opposed to a conviction, is not entitled to post-trial release.
Appellant contends that, because the appeal is authorized by statute and court rule,3 the supersedeas bond should be allowed. However, there is no express statutory authorization to grant supersedeas bond on appeal of a departure sentence only. Additionally, we have found no authority for the proposition that the right to appeal carries with it an inherent right to supersedeas.
Furthermore, the circuit court’s strict construction of Rule 3.691, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, is justified in light of the rational basis upon which the court drew the distinction. Namely, appellant is not asserting his innocence and/or right to fair trial on appeal, i.e., his right to be free, but is only alleging that the trial court erred in the severity of the sentence imposed.
Due to the express and exclusive language of Rule 3.691(a), the lack of any other express authority for post-trial release in these circumstances, and our finding that a rational basis exists for distinguishing between those who appeal convictions and those who appeal a sentence only, we find no error in the appealed order. Accordingly, the order of the trial court denying appellant a supersedeas bond is affirmed.
SHIVERS, WENTWORTH and WIG-GINTON, JJ., concur. .The appeal is pending in this court under Case No. BG-125. Pursuant to Rule 3.691(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, appellant filed a separate notice of appeal of the order denying his motion for post-trial release. Reading Rule 3.691(c) in pari materia with Rule 9.140(e)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we find that the better practice would have been to seek review of the post-trial order by motion in the already pending Case No. BG-125.
. Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge against him without expressly reserving the right to appeal any issue. See Rule 9.140(b)(1)(E), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
. Rule 9.140(b)(1)(E), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; Sections 921.001(5) and 924.-06(l)(e), Florida Statutes.