PHILLIP MURRAY, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of relief to the appellant, who argued he was denied due process by not being afforded a preliminary hearing. The court held that a preliminary hearing is not a prerequisite to a criminal prosecution.
No, the failure to provide a preliminary hearing does not violate due process and is not a basis for post-conviction relief. A preliminary hearing is not a prerequisite to a criminal prosecution.
“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.”
This quote summarizes the appellant's argument and the court's initial rejection of it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was serving a sentence after being convicted of forgery and uttering a forged instrument. He filed a motion seeking relief, arguing that…
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 Preliminary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order of the trial court summarily denying relief under Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. Ch. 924 Appendix, sought on motion of appellant filed while he was serving a sentence imposed on convictions following trial on two informations charging him with forgery and with uttering a forged instrument. The ground urged by appellant for relief was that he was not at any time afforded a preliminary hearing before a magistrate. That contention was not accompanied by a showing in the motion of any harm or prejudice resulting. The contention lacks merit, and the trial court was eminently correct in so concluding. Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So.2d 264, cert. den. 83 S.Ct. 153, 371 U.S. 879, 9 L.Ed.2d 117; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 38. In the Hoffman case, the first district court of appeal, in an opinion authored by Judge Wigginton, said:
“ * * * 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, 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 filing of an indictment. It serves only to determine whether or not probable cause exists to hold a person for trial, and a prosecution may be instituted and maintained regardless of such an investigation.”
Accordingly the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray v. State, 191 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
-
Reuel Lawson v. State, 215 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…from an absence of preliminary hearing or because he was not taken before a magistrate upon his arrest. Therefore post-conviction relief under the Rule is not available. Wallace v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 443; Murray v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So. 2d 487; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 243; Carey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 603; Blunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 49. 2. Refusal of counsel at line-up. The U. S. Supreme Court, in Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263, 87…
-
Rankin v. State, 197 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed under authority of Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 487; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 243; Carey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 603; Cole v. State. Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 698; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 34; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 675; Johnson v. State, Fl…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Sawyer v. United States, 371 U.S. 879 (U.S. 1962)
- Bagley v. Rhay, 371 U.S. 879 (U.S. 1962)
- Acceptance Corp. OF Fla. v. Stewart, 169 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Hoffman v. State, 169 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)