EX PARTE ROY JONES
v.
E. G. CUNNINGHAM, AS SHERIFF OF PINELLAS COUNTY
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 petitioner seeking bail after being charged with first-degree murder. The Supreme Court reviewed the bail amount set by a lower court, finding it excessive for the petitioner's financial means and reducing it to a reasonable sum.
Yes, the bail set at $20,000 was excessive. The court determined that $5,000 was a reasonable amount for bail under the circumstances.
“if a person charged with [*334] crime is entitled to bail he is entitled to reasonable bail.”
Establishes the principle that bail must be reasonable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner, a negro man of limited means, was charged with first-degree murder and denied bond. He applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circ…
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 Reasonable Bail cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the petitioner procured a writ of habeas corpus from a Justice of this Court. The return filed shows that petitioner was held under a commitment from the County Judge’s Court pursuant to being charged in that court with the offense of murder in the first degree. That the petitioner after being committed to jail to be held to await the action of the Grand Jury without bond, applied to the Honorable John U. Bird, Judge of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that he was entitled to bail because the proof was not evident nor the presumption great that he is guilty of the offense charged. That on hearing in habeas corpus Judge Bird determined that petitioner was entitled to bail and fixed bail in the sum of Twenty Thousand ($20,000.00) Dollars.
We have heretofore held that if a person charged with *334crime is entitled to bail he is entitled to reasonable bail. The record before us shows that the accused is a negro man of very limited means and is entirely unable to procure bail in the sum of $20,000.00.
The transcript of the record of the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing is in the record before us and, from consideration of the entire record, we are impelled to hold that the bail fixed by the Circuit Judge is excessive; that the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars is a reasonable amount in which to require bail to be given and we, therefore, order and adjudge that the petitioner may be discharged from custody upon making appearance bond in the usual legal form in the sum of $5,000.00, with two good and sufficient sureties or a surety company authorized to do business in this State approved by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, conditioned upon his appearance at the next term of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County and from term to term of said court, and not to depart the same without leave of said court.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. William Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1973)…days for review here as a petition for certiorari (as we have considered it). We find conflict between the district court’s holding for review here, reported at 274 So. 2d 610 (Fla.App.3d 1973), and our earlier Florida cases of Jones v. Cunningham, 126 Fla. 333, 170 So. 663 (1936), and State ex rel. Cohen v. Wingate, 94 So. 862 (Fla.1923), wherein this Court retained jurisdiction of proceedings in habeas corpus filed originally here, where bail was challenged as excessive. We are aware of those other decis…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein v. Honorable George E. Schulz, 180 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…owne, 105 Fla. 631, 142 So. 247, 250; State ex rel. Dato v. Himes, 134 Fla. 675, 184 So. 244; Clark v. State ex rel. Rubin, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 807, 812; Buchanan v. State ex rel. Hunt, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So .2d 186, 189. .Jones v. Cunningham, 126 Fla. 333, 170 So. 663. . Mendenhall v. Sweat, 117 Fla. 659, 158 So. 280; 4 Fla.Jur., Bail & Recognizance § 33. . Mendenhall v. Sweat, supra, at 281. . Mead v. State, Fla.1958, 101 So. 2d 373; State v. Emanuel, Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 839.…
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Rolando Bardina v. Sandstrom, 321 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…965, 180 So. 2d 367; Matera v. Buchanan, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 18; State v. Untreiner, Fla.App.1971, 246 So. 2d 158. However, it has often been held that when a defendant is entitled to bail he is entitled to reasonable bail [Jones v. Cunningham, 126 Fla. 333, 170 So. 663; Mathis v. Starr, Fla.1963, 152 So. 2d 161; State v. Schulz, supra], and that excessive bail, depending on the financial circumstances of the defendant, is tantamount to no bail. Mendenhall v. Sweat, 117 Fla. 659, 158 So. 280; Jones v.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence