ARTHUR LEE LOGUE, PETITIONER,
v.
LEON HINOTE, SHERIFF OF SANTA ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 court held that the $25,000 bail set for the petitioner was excessive and violated Article I, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution.
Petitioner was charged with possession of stolen property and detained pending trial. The bail set was $25,000, which the petitioner argued was unreas…
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 Reasonable Bail cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner has filed a habeas corpus action in this court by which he alleges that he is being unlawfully detained while he awaits his trial on charges of possession of stolen property. The alleged illegality of his detention rests on his contention that the bail which has been set in his case in the amount of $25,000 is so unreasonable or excessive as to amount to a violation of Article I, Section 14, Florida Constitution of 1968, F.S.A.
We agree.
The constitutional provision upon which petitioner relies is as follows:
“SECTION 14. Bail. — Until adjudged guilty, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to release on reasonable bail with sufficient surety unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.”
We have considered the return filed in behalf of the respondent, but we are not persuaded thereby that the amount of bail in this case is not excessive. On the contrary, $25,000 seems to us to be within the range of bail amounts which have been held to be excessive by other appellate courts of this state as well as our own in similar cases.
Indeed, in a case that also involved a petitioner charged with like crimes as that ascribed to petitioner Logue, we held that the sum of $30,000 bail was excessive and ordered the same to be reduced. State ex rel. Crabb v. Carson et al., 189 So.2d 376 (Fla.App.1966). The circumstances here relating to the standards to be considered in determining the proper amount of bail do not seem to be more dire than those present in the Crabb case, supra.
Accordingly, on the authority of Crabb, supra, it is ordered that the writ issue and the amount of bond set by the Circuit Court in and for Santa Rosa County, Florida, for petitioner in the pending case against him, No. 69-C-446, for possession of stolen property be reduced to $10,000.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Jackson Henry Smith v. Royal Untreiner, 246 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…e case at bar is excessive and therefore violative of Article I, Section 14, Florida Constitution of 1968, F.S.A., petitioner relies heavily on the decisions of this court in State ex rel. Crabb v. Carson, 189 So. 2d 376 (1966), and Logue v. Hinote, 228 So. 2d 414 (1969). In Crabb, we recognized that the purpose of bail is not to punish the accused but to secure his attendance to answer the charge against him. There the trial court set bail at $30,000, and this court found that amount to be excessive and redu…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Billy Joe Crabb v. Carson, 189 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)