LEON G. SCHACK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND L. L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Schack sought habeas corpus relief after completing his sentence in one case, requesting bail reduction in that case. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of the petition, finding that Schack was lawfully detained for serving sentences in two other cases and was not entitled to bail after appellate affirmance of his convictions.
A prisoner is not entitled to bail after a judgment of conviction has been reviewed and affirmed on appeal, and the trial court properly denied habeas corpus relief where the petitioner was lawfully imprisoned for serving sentences in other cases.
“Appellant is not entitled to bail after his judgment of conviction has been reviewed in accordance with our appellate procedure and such judgment of conviction has been approved on appeal.”
Establishes the rule that appellate affirmance of a conviction precludes bail eligibility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Schack completed his sentence in Case No. 6264 on May 20, 1967, and requested the Criminal Court of Record in Palm Beach County to reduce th…
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 Legality Of Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO QUASH
Schack filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the lower court and- his petition was denied. He has appealed from this order and the State has filed its motion to quash on the grounds that the appeal is frivolous and taken for purposes of delay.
In his petition for writ of habeas corpus the appellant alleged that on May 20, 1967, he completed serving the sentence which was given him in Case No. 6264, that he requested the Criminal Court of Record, in and for Palm Beach County, to decrease the bail which had been set in that case but that the court refused to honor his request.
A certificate from the Director of the’Division of Corrections shows that appellant did complete his sentence for Case No. 6264 on May 20, 1967. However, he is presently being lawfully detained for purpose of serving the sentence which was imposed in Case No. 62-2607. The judgment in this latter case was affirmed in Schack v; State, 199 So.2d 129 (Fla.App. 4th, 1967). The sentence for that case will terminate on August 25, 1968. At that time appellant is scheduled to begin serving sentence for Case No. 62-2608, which sentence will terminate on November 30, 1969.
Appellant is not entitled to bail after his judgment of conviction has been reviewed in accordance with our appellate procedure and such judgment of conviction has been approved on appeal. Ex parte Hyde et al., 140 Fla. 494, 192 So. 159 (1939). Bail could not be obtained for Case # 6264. Nor is appellant entitled to be released from the State Prison under bail for the sentence which he is presently serving. The purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is to question the legality of a petitioner’s present deten*825tion. Hollingshead v. Mayo, 79 So.2d 774 (Fla.1955); Sneed v. Mayo, 69 So.2d 653 (Fla.1954).
It appears from the record that appellant is presently being legally imprisoned and was not entitled to the relief requested by his petition. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The motion to quash is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Netherly v. Dugger, 513 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…. Because appellant was legally confined at the time he filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court was correct in denying the petition for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. See Schack v. State, 202 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. dismissed, 204 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 967, 88 S.Ct. 1078, 19 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1968). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, without prejudice to…
-
State v. Matrascia, 377 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…78). It has been uniformly held that upon denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, there is no entitlement to bail pending the prisoner’s appeal of the denial of the petition. See Ex Parte Hyde, supra; and Schack v. State, 202 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). See also Hoskins v. State, 217 So. 2d 852 (Fla.1st DCA 1969); and annot. 143 ALR 1354, 1358-1359 (1943). In this connection, the provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.820 provide: “(a) When a defendant has been sen…
-
Schack v. State, 204 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 202 So. 2d 824.…
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Hyde, 140 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1939)
- Sneed v. Mayo, 69 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1954)
- Stover v. Stubbs, 79 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1955)
- Cleveland Hollingshead v. Mayo, 79 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1955)
- Schack v. State, 199 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Foxworth v. State, 199 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)