WYON DALE CHILDERS, 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 Childers appealed the trial court's denial of bond pending appeal, arguing the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard. The appellate court agreed, holding that bond pending appeal depends on whether the appeal raises issues that are debatable and involve reasonable questions, not whether those issues were previously rejected by the trial court.
The court held that bond pending appeal depends on whether the issues raised are open to debate and involve reasonable questions, not on whether those issues were previously presented to and rejected by the trial court. The trial court applied an incorrect, higher standard that constitutes an abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard in determining whether to grant post-trial release pending appeal.
[2] The threshold question for granting bond pending appeal is whether the appeal is taken in good faith, on grounds fairly debatable, and not frivolous.
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“Good faith does not mean there is probable cause to believe the judgment will be reversed, but simply that the appeal is not vexatious and the defendant has assigned errors that are open to debate and about which reasonable questions exist.”
Establishes the correct legal standard for evaluating whether an appeal is taken on 'fairly debatable' grounds for purposes of bond pending appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought bond pending appeal after his conviction. The trial court found the appeal was not frivolous and taken in good faith but denied bond …
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 Good Faith Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has filed a motion seeking review of the trial court’s denial of his request for bond pending appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(h). In the motion, appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by applying the incorrect standard in determining whether to grant post-trial release. We agree and grant appellant’s motion on that basis.
The threshold question presented in a motion for bond pending appeal is whether the appeal is taken in good faith, on grounds fairly debatable, and not frivolous. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.691(a); Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1956). In Baker v. State, 213 So. 2d 285, 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), the court explained “[g]ood faith does not mean there is probable cause to believe the judgment will be reversed, but simply that the appeal is not vexatious and the defendant has assigned errors that are open to debate and about which reasonable questions exist.”
In the present case, the trial court found that the appeal was not frivolous and was taken in good faith. However, the trial court noted that the grounds for appeal had been raised in motions for a new trial and judgment of acquittal and those motions had been denied as being without merit. Accordingly, the trial court found that appellant had failed to establish that the appeal was taken on grounds fairly debatable. In explaining its decision, the trial court stated “I think the Court would be hypocritical in doing what he did and then say at the same time that there are grounds fairly debatable.”
This standard applied by the trial court imposes a higher burden on appellant than is required by rule 3.691 and the caselaw. Post-trial release is not dependent on whether the appellate issues have been raised before the trial court and rejected. The standard is whether the issues raised are open to debate and involve reasonable questions. See Baker. After all, most issues raised on appeal have been presented to the trial court and rejected. Application of an incorrect standard in a bond proceeding is an abuse of discretion requiring reversal. See Boles v. State, 388 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)(reversing the trial court’s denial of bond pending appeal where the trial court applied an incorrect standard requiring the appeal to be very likely to succeed). Therefore, we grant appellant’s motion in part and remand this matter to the trial court for further consideration.
VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur; WEBSTER, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ansen Brown v. State, 82 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…victed and sentenced is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla.1956). In this case the Court finds the appeal to be frivolous and not based on grounds that are fairly debatable. Childers v. State, 847 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Further, this Court finds that because the Defendant resides out of state and has no local ties to the community, that he is a flight risk. Appellant moved for reconsideration, asserting that he is a Florida resident with ties…
-
Petersen v. State, 187 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…te have opined on the meaning of “not frivolous but fairly debatable.” In Childers v. State, this court reviewed an order of the trial court which denied a motion for post-trial release on the basis that the appeal was .frivolous, Childers v. State, 847 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In coming to its conclusion, the trial court reasoned that [*286] “the Court would be hypocritical in doing what he did and then say at the same time that there are grounds fairly debatable.” Childers, 847 So. 2d at 1120-21. Thi…
Authorities Cited
- Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1956)
- Baker v. State, 213 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Boles v. State, 388 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)