BRUCE HINSON GAMMAGE AND LARRY V. GYSIN, 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.
This case concerns a motion for bail pending appeal filed by a convicted individual. The court denied the motion, holding that a person convicted of a crime is generally not entitled to bail while appealing an order denying their motion to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentence.
No, a person convicted of a crime is generally not entitled to bail pending appeal from an order denying their motion to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentence, with certain exceptions not applicable here.
“With certain possible exceptions not applicable here, a person convicted of crime who seeks release by way of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is not entitled to bail pending appeal from an order of the trial court denying his application.”
This quote establishes the core legal principle the court applied to deny the bail request.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBruce Hinson Gammage, convicted of grand larceny, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. Th…
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
Bruce Hinson Gammage, confined under sentence following conviction on a charge of grand larceny, presented a “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence,” to the trial court under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, ¿51 F.S.A. The motion was denied and he has appealed. His oral motion to the trial court for a supersedeas intended to operate as bail pending appeal was denied. There is now before us a motion of appellant filed in this court for his release on bail pending such appeal.
With certain possible exceptions not applicable here, a person convicted of crime who seeks release by way of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is not entitled to bail pending appeal from an order of the trial court denying his application. See Reiff v. United States, 9 Cir. 1961, 288 F.2d 887, so holding with reference to the corresponding federal procedure. Compare Ex parte Hyde, 140 Fla. 494, 192 So. 159.
Having considered the record submitted and the arguments of counsel, the motion for bail pending appeal is denied.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bruce Hinson Gammage and Larry v. Gysin, 162 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
-
Simmons v. State, 163 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…here he is now ■confined. On his present appeal, following denial of his motion below, the appellant Iras moved this court to fix bail pending final outcome of the proceedings under the Rule. The motion is denied. See Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 712. We are constrained to hold that the ■denial below of appellant’s motion under the Rule was on stated grounds which, if meritorious in the abstract, were based predominantly on matters dehors the record. See Keur v. State, Fla.App.1963, 160 So. 2d…
-
State v. Matrascia, 377 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…courts of this state that a defendant is not “entitled” to bail pending his appeal from the denial of a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Simmons v. State, 163 So. 2d 888 (Fla.2d DCA 1964); and Gammage v. State, 154 So. 2d 712 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). In Ex Parte Hyde, 140 Fla. 494, 192 So. 159 (1939), the Supreme Court made clear that bail after conviction of a crime is allowable only in cases where bail is provided by statute or according to some provision of the common law.…
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Hyde, 140 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1939)
- Reiff v. United States, 288 F.2d 887 (9th Cir. 1961)