STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT MARTIN, 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.
The State appeals a trial court's order quashing an information charging the defendant with unlawful use of a credit card, arguing that the warrant's endorsement language regarding a return date did not invalidate an arrest executed 18 months after the date on the warrant. The appellate court reversed, holding that the return date endorsement on a warrant is directory rather than mandatory.
The court held that the statutory requirement for endorsement of a return day on a warrant is directory rather than mandatory, and does not serve to invalidate a warrant or render an arrest unlawful merely because execution occurs after the endorsed return date. The arrest was therefore lawful.
“The warrant was executed some eighteen months subsequent to the return date stated therein and became functus officio and therefore Defendant's arrest was unauthorized.”
The trial court's reasoning for quashing the information, which the appellate court disagreed with.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA warrant for the defendant's arrest was issued on July 1, 1964, for unlawful use of a credit card and was endorsed with a return date of January 1, 1…
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.
This is an appeal by the State from a final judgment quashing an information charging the appellee-defendant with the *890unlawful use of a credit card issued to another. We reverse.
The prosecution of the appellee was commenced by the issuance of a warrant dated July 1, 1964, by the Judge of the Court of Record of Broward County, for the arrest of the appellee by delivery of the warrant to the Sheriff of Broward County on July 2, 1964. The warrant for arrest was based on an affidvait, charging the appellee with the unlawful use of a credit card. Thereafter the warrant was executed on April 3, 1967, by the arrest of the appellee and the County Solicitor filed this Information on April 18, 1967.
The trial court judge entered an order sustaining the defendant’s motion to quash the Information because, “[t]he warrant was executed some eighteen months subsequent to the return date stated therein and became functus officio and therefore Defendant’s arrest was unauthorized.” Section 901.03, F.S.1967, provides for the forms and contents of a warrant of arrest and at the end provides that “(7) In all offenses bailable as of right [the warrant] be endorsed with the amount of bail and the return day on the back of the warrant.”
It seems clear that the statutory language providing for an endorsement “with the amount of bail and the return day” relates to bail and not the “return day” of the warrant. The intent and purpose of the endorsement as to the amount of bail was to enable the arresting officer to accept proper bail without the necessity of contacting the judge to fix the amount of the bail bond. The endorsement on the back of the warrant did not go to the substance of the warrant and is only directory in nature.
The language of the endorsement is: “Bond is hereby fixed at $750.00. Return date of this Warrant to be not later than 1st day of January 1966.” We conclude that the judge misconstrued the ambiguous language of the above-quoted statutory language as being applicable to the return day of the warrant; such is not the intent of the law. The arrest does not appear to have been unlawful.
The judgment appealed is reversed for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed.
McCAIN and REED, J J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norris v. State, 737 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…with the amount of bail and the return date. The intent and purpose of this bail endorsement is to enable, the arresting officer to accept proper bail without the necessity of contacting the judge to fix the amount of the bail bond. State v. Martin, 213 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.130(a) requires that an accused be afforded a first appearance before a judicial officer within 24 hours. Subsection (d) of that rule provides that the first appearance judge shall proceed to…