WILLIAM FRED ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
This case addresses whether a defendant's due process rights are violated by being tried via information without a preliminary hearing. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a preliminary hearing is not a prerequisite for prosecution in Florida.
No, the State of Florida does not violate a defendant's due process rights by prosecuting them via information without first affording them a preliminary hearing, as such a hearing is not a prerequisite for prosecution.
“'A prosecution may be instituted and maintained regardless of whether such a hearing is or is not held, and regardless of whether probable cause to hold the accused for trial is of is not found.'”
This quote establishes that a preliminary hearing is not a mandatory step for initiating a criminal prosecution in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Fred Anderson was tried and convicted in Florida. He appealed, arguing that his due process rights were violated because the state proceeded b…
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 Preliminary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
The sole point presented on this appeal is Anderson’s contention that it was a violation of due process of law for the State to have placed him on trial by direct information without having accorded him a preliminary hearing.
The last reported decision of the Supreme Court of Florida concerning the right of an individual accused of a crime to a preliminary hearing is Palmieri v. State.1 The Court declared that:
"* * * under *.**[§ 901.23, Fla.Stat.] a preliminary hearing is for the purpose of determining if probable cause exists to hold one accused of a crime for trial. Rouse v. State (1902), 44 Fla. 148, 32 So. 784; Davis v. State (Fla.1953), 65 So.2d 307; Baugus v. State (Fla.1962), 141 So.2d 264. It is not an indispensable prerequisite to the filing of an information, Di Bona v. State (Fla.App.1960), 121 So.2d 192, 193; Davis v. State, supra, and is not a necessary step in criminal proceedings. Shea v. State (Fla.App.1964), 167 So.2d 796; Baugus v. State, supra. ‘A prosecution may be instituted and maintained regardless of whether such a hearing is or is not held, and regardless of whether probable cause to hold the accused for trial is of is not found.’ Montgomery v. State (Fla.1965), 176 So.2d 331, cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1023, 86 S.Ct. 1955, 16 L.Ed.2d 1026.” 2
We therefore conclude that appellant’s contention has no merit in the State of Florida.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)
- Montgomery v. State, 176 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1965)
- Guido DI Bona v. State, 121 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Rouse v. State, 44 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1902)
- Carmine Vincent Palmieri v. State, 198 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1967)
- Davis v. State, 65 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1953)
- Whiteside v. United States, 384 U.S. 1023 (U.S. 1966)
- Cone v. United States, 384 U.S. 1023 (U.S. 1966)
- Shea v. State, 167 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)