STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. RICHARD DUNCAN PEARSON, PETITIONER,
v.
TALMADGE A. BUCHANAN, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
In this habeas corpus proceeding, the Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed whether a trial judge's increase of bail from $25,000 to $75,000 was constitutional and justified. The court found insufficient justification in the record for the increase and remanded the case for the trial judge to reconsider the reasonableness of the bail amount.
The court found a lack of sufficient showing in the record to justify the bail increase. While the trial judge may find adequate basis for the amount on fuller hearing, the court discharged the writ and remanded for the trial judge to reconsider the reasonableness of the bail.
“The petitioner having appeared in response to the bond fixed by the Circuit Court and standing before the trial court on the date of trial, the trial judge was possessed with the necessary jurisdiction to make inquiry into the bail.”
Establishes the trial judge's authority to reconsider bail when the defendant appears as required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Pearson was in custody on a grand larceny charge. The Criminal Court of Record denied his bail application. The Circuit Court then granted …
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 Excessive Bail cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is an original habeas corpus proceeding in this court. Prior to the institution of this proceeding, the petitioner (being in the .custody of the Sheriff of Dade County to respond to an information of grand' larceny, etc.) applied for bail in the Criminal Court of Record, which was denied. Thereafter, he filed an original proceeding in habeas corpus in the Circuit Court in and for Dade County,1 and bail was fixed by that court in the amount of $25,000.00 to assure his appearance at the trial scheduled for 10:00 A.M. on October 20, 1965. The petitioner posted said $25,-000.00 bond and appeared at the time and date set for trial, to-wit: October 20, 1965, at which time his counsel made a motion for continuance, which was granted. Thereupon the trial judge announced that he would consider the matter of bail pending the trial date as continued, and scheduled the matter for consideration at 2:00 o’clock P.M. that day. The petitioner having appeared in response to the bond fixed by the Circuit Court and standing before the trial court on the date of trial, the trial judge was possessed with the necessary jurisdiction to make inquiry into the bail. See State ex rel. Metcalf v. Lehman, 1932, 103 Fla. 1068, 138 So. 740.
Upon the proceedings resuming before the trial judge on the question of bail pending the continued trial, inquiry was made if the petitioner had any evidence or argument from his counsel to offer, and none was forthcoming. Thereupon the trial judge fixed bail in the amount of $75,000.00, pending a trial of the cause on the continued date of November 4, 1965.
Thereafter, the instant proceedings were commenced in this court, seeking a writ of habeas corpus contending that the $75,000.00 bail was excessive and therefore a denial of constitutional rights. See Section 8, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. The writ issued and the respondent filed his return. Following oral argument in the matter, we have considered the record and find a lack of sufficient showing to justify the increase made, although on further or fuller hearing, the ■trial judge may find adequate basis for the amount of bond as previously fixed by him. During the oral argument before this court, counsel for respondent conceded that the bail as fixed, on the record before us, appears to, or may, be excessive to some degree.
We therefore discharge the writ and return the matter to the trial judge to reconsider the reasonableness of the bail, and in this connection we call attention to Mendenhall v. Sweat, 1934, 117 Fla. 659, 158 So. 280.
The writ is therefore discharged and the cause remanded.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mendenhall v. Sweat, 117 Fla. 659 (Fla. 1934)
- State v. Lehman, 103 Fla. 1068 (Fla. 1932)