MOULTRIE J. BOATRIGHT AND ANDREW H. CRAWFORD, APPELLANTS,
v.
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 reviews an order denying bail pending appeal, where the trial court feared the appellants would commit further crimes. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the risk of future criminal conduct is a valid ground for denying bail.
Yes, the apprehension that a convicted defendant might commit further criminal offenses during the pendency of an appeal is a valid ground for denying bail pending that appeal.
“Appellants contend that this is not a valid ground for denying their motion for an order allowing them bail until their appeal is finally determined.”
This quote states the appellants' argument against the trial court's reasoning for denying bail.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants were convicted and sentenced and sought bail pending their appeal. The trial court denied their motion for bail, expressing concern tha…
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
Appellants seek review of an order rendered by the trial court denying them bail pending the appeal of their judgments of conviction and sentence. Appellants contend that the order appealed is premised upon the apprehension of the trial court that if bail is granted they will commit further criminal offenses during the pend-ency of their appeal. Appellants contend that this is not a valid ground for denying their motion for an order allowing them bail until their appeal is finally determined. The order appealed is affirmed. See Sanders v. State, (Fla.App.1966) 184 So.2d 686; Younghans v. State, (Fla.1956) 90 So.2d 308; Carbo v. United States, 82 S.Ct. 662, 7 L.Ed.2d 769; United States v. Piper, (D.C.Tex.1964) 227 F.Supp. 735. Contra, see Waller v. State, (Fla.App.1968) 208 So.2d 147.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 229 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…ial of bond pending appeal. That appellant was granted supersedeas bond pending appeal in the first case is no reason to repeat the mistake in this one. Accordingly, the motion for bond pending appeal is denied on authority of Boat-wright v. State, 213 So. 2d 622 (Fla.App. 1st, 1968). JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1956)
- Sanders v. State, 184 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Waller v. State, 208 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)