EARL F. HOFFMAN, 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.
Hoffman was convicted of possessing a weapon while confined in state prison and sentenced to two years imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the validity of his conviction on two constitutional grounds: lack of a preliminary hearing and trial by information rather than grand jury indictment. The appellate court rejected both arguments and affirmed the conviction.
The court held that neither the denial of a preliminary hearing nor prosecution by information violated the appellant's constitutional rights. A preliminary hearing under Florida law is not a step in due process nor a prerequisite to criminal prosecution, and grand jury indictment, though required in federal jurisdiction, is not constitutionally required in state prosecutions.
“the procedure of hearing a case preliminarily under F.S. Chapter 902, F.S. A., is not a step in due process of law, nor is it a prerequisite to a criminal prosecution or the filing of an indictment”
Establishes that preliminary hearings are not constitutionally required in state prosecutions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with possessing a weapon while lawfully confined within the state prison. He was tried by jury in the Circuit Court of the Eight…
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 Grand Jury Indictment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged in an information filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida with the offense of having in his possession a weapon while lawfully confined within the state prison. He was found guilty by a jury, adjudged guilty by the court, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of two years. It is from that judgment and sentence that this appeal is taken.
By his brief filed in the cause appellant levels a two-prong attack upon the validity of the judgment here reviewed. By his first point he contends that his constitutional right to due process of law was violated because of the state’s failure to promptly grant him a preliminary hearing after his arrest and before his arraignment. This contention has been held to be wholly without merit. In Baugus v. State,1 it was held that the procedure of hearing a case preliminarily under F.S. Chapter 902, F.S. A., is not a step in due process of law, nor is it a prerequisite to a criminal prosecution or the filing of an indictment. It serves only to determine whether or not probabl: cause exists to hold a person for trial, and a prosecution may be instituted and maintained regardless of such an investigation.
By his second point, appellant claims violation of his constitutional rights to due process of law for the reason that he was tried upon an information filed by the State Attorney, and not upon an indictment re-' turned by a grand jury. Although indictment by a grand jury appears to be an essential prerequisite to a prosecution in the federal jurisdiction, such is not the case with respect to prosecutions in state courts. Such a contention was rejected by this Court in the case of Davis v. State.2 In that case our holding was upon the authority of a decision rendered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal of the United States in the case of Koch v. Zuieback.3
This appeal having been found to be without merit, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brookins v. State, 174 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…of prejudicial harm a preliminary hearing is not an essential step in a criminal proceeding [see: Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So. 2d 264, cert. den 83 S.Ct. 153, 371 U.S. 879, 9 L.Ed.2d 117; Wooten v. State, supra; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 38], lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing does not constitute a denial of due process of law. Webster v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 156 So. 2d 890; Sam v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 258. As to the appellant’s second allegation, the appellant has f…
-
Gibson v. State, 173 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…e v. State, 1902, 44 Fla. 148, 32 So. 784; Di Bona v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 121 So. 2d 192. Thus, the denial of a preliminary hearing cannot deprive a defendant of due process of law and the substance of a fair trial. Hoffman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 38; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305. This is particularly true in the absence of a showing that prejudice to the appellant resulted from his failure to have a preliminary hearing. See Wooten v. State, supra. It is therefore the opinion o…
-
Douzier Shannon v. State, 172 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ge did not commit error, and we affirm. A preliminary hearing was not essential to due process and a fair trial. No prejudice was shown to have resulted from its absence. Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 38. The statutory provisions for furnishing a copy of an indictment or information contemplate an application therefor. §§ 906.28 and 940.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The trial judge correctly viewed as insufficient an allegation that copies were not supplied…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)
- Koch v. Zuieback, 316 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1963)
- Sawyer v. United States, 371 U.S. 879 (U.S. 1962)
- Bagley v. Rhay, 371 U.S. 879 (U.S. 1962)
- Davis v. State, 166 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)