HERBERT BARBER
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision upholding a $10,000 supersedeas bail bond for a defendant convicted of murder in the second degree. The court held that the reasonableness standard applies to supersedeas bonds after conviction, and that such bonds may be higher than pre-conviction bail without violating constitutional protections.
After conviction, the test of reasonableness must be applied to supersedeas bonds, and what might be unreasonable as pre-conviction bail is not necessarily unreasonable when required as bond incident to an application for discharge pending a writ of error. The $10,000 supersedeas bond was reasonable under the circumstances despite the defendant's insolvency.
“after conviction the test of reasonableness must be applied in fixing the amount of a supersedeas bond under our statutes”
Establishes the governing legal standard for supersedeas bonds after conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerbert Barber was convicted of murder in the second degree. The trial court fixed a supersedeas bond of $10,000 as a condition for discharge on bail …
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.
This writ of error is to a judgment upholding a supersedeas bail in the sum of $10,000.00 required of petitioner who stood convicted of murder in the second degree. The purpose of the habeas corpus was to secure a reduction in the amount of bond that had been fixed under conviction. The Circuit Judge found after a full hearing that the requirement of a $10,000.00 supersedeas bond was not unreasonable, or tantamount to the denial of bail, and remanded petitioner.
Our conclusion is that after conviction the test of reasonableness must be applied in fixing the amount of a supersedeas bond under our statutes. This means that what would, or might be, unreasonable if required as bail prior to a conviction, is not necessarily to be deemed unreasonable if required as bond incident to an application for discharge on bail pending a writ of error. Section 8467 C. G. L., 6153 R. G. S., 8565 C. G. L., 6151 R. G. S.
The particular circumstances found and recited in the order of reversal entered in this case are ample to justify the finding as reasonable of a supersedeas bond in the sum of $10,000.00, when so fixed after conviction and sentence for murder in the second degree, even though the defendant is shown to be insolvent and probably unable to make such bond in his present circumstances. The rule of Mendenhall v. Sweat, 117 Fla. 299, 157 Sou. Rep. 888, 117 Fla. 659, 158 Sou. Rep. 280, is applicable to ordinary bail under Sections 8 and 9, Declaration of Rights', Florida Constitution. In supersedeas matters the rule of State, ex rel. Gallat, v. Allen, 82 Fla. 149, 89 Sou. Rep. 398, applies.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lambert v. State, 151 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…. STURGIS, Acting C. J., and WIGGIN-TON J., concur. . F.S. § 924.16, F.S.A. . Stalnaker v. State, 126 Fla. 407, 171 So. 226 (1936). . 8 C.J.S. Bail § 51. . Ex parte Hyde, 140 Fla. 494, 192 So. 159, 161 (1939). . Barber v. State, 124 Fla. 694, 169 So. 368 (1936).…
Authorities Cited
- Mendenhall v. Sweat, 117 Fla. 659 (Fla. 1934)
- State v. Allen, 82 Fla. 149 (Fla. 1921)
- Mendenhall v. Sweat, 117 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1934)