WILSON STALNAKER, J. T. HAMMOCK, SR., AND NATHAN PRAYTHER,
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 granted bail pending appeal to a defendant convicted of first-degree murder, finding that while bail is generally not available for capital offenses after conviction, the circumstances warranted favorable consideration.
Yes, bail can be granted pending appeal for a defendant convicted of a capital offense if the circumstances warrant favorable consideration, even though the constitutional provision for bail primarily applies before trial.
“Section 9 of the Bill of Rights provides that all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great.”
This quote states the constitutional basis for bail in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ. T. Hammock, Sr. was convicted of first-degree murder with a recommendation for mercy and has appealed the conviction. He moved for bail pending the…
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 Bail Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Order.
J. T. Hammock, Sr., was tried with Wilson Stalnaker and Nathan Prayther for the murder of W. C. Harris in Hamilton County. Hammock was convicted of murder in the first degree with recommendation to mercy. He has taken writ of error to the judgment of conviction and moves for bail pending the disposition of his case in this Court.
Section 9 of the Bill of Rights provides that all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great.
This provision of the Constitution has reference to bail sought prior to indictment and trial. After trial and conviction the matter of granting bail, as does a supersedeas, rests in the discretion of the trial court to be determined by the evidence and the facts in the case. Ex parte McDaniel, 86 Fla. 145, 97 So. 317.
The bill of exceptions has been examined and while we here express no opinion as to the probative force of the evidence, we are confident that the circumstances warrant favorable consideration of the application for bail which is hereby granted conditioned on the posting of bond in the sum of $5,000.00 to be approved by the Sheriff of Hamilton County.
*409It is ordered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Greene v. State, 238 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1970)…tal offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.” Fla.Const. art. I, § 14 (1968 Revision). See Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1956) and Stalnaker v. State, 126 Fla. 407, 171 So. 226 (1936). . Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1956). . Floyd v. State, 79 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1955). . See eases listed in Annots., 19 A.L.R. 807 (1922), 77 A.L.R. 1235 (1932), and 45 A.L.R. 458 (1926). . See, e. g., Bowman v. United States, 85 S…
-
Ex parte Hyde, 140 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1939)…hereafter the allowance of bail is discretionary and allowable only in cases bailable according to the course of the common law or the statutes. Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Section 9; Section 8467 C. G. L., Stalnaker v. State, 126 Fla. 407, 171 So. 226; Ex Parte McDaniel, 86 Fla. 145, 97 So. 317. We have no statute providing for allowance of bail after the judgment of conviction has been affirmed by this Court and petition for rehearing denied. And there was no such right at common law. Our concl…
-
Rowe v. State, 394 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…to review the order. The state argues that under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.691 (1977) the trial court has no discretion to grant bail to a person convicted of a capital offense. The defendant urges that the rule, interpreted in light of Stalnaker v. State, 126 Fla. 407, 171 So. 226 (1936), Gray v. State, 54 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1951) and Hedden v. State, 275 So. 2d 52 (Fla.2d DCA 1973), leaves discretion in the trial judge when one charged and convicted of a capital offense is sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex Parte, 86 Fla. 145 (Fla. 1923)