STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES CLIFFORD LAMPLEY, 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 of Florida appealed the vacation of a bail bond forfeiture judgment against surety James Clifford Lampley. The court affirmed the trial court's vacating of the forfeiture, holding that when a criminal information is dismissed and the state appeals, the state must affirmatively move to keep the bail bond in force; absent such action, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the forfeiture.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the bail bond forfeiture judgment. When a criminal information is dismissed and the state appeals, the burden is on the state to affirmatively move the trial court to keep the bail bond in force; the trial court's failure to sua sponte maintain the bond or order the defendant held pending new charges relieves the surety of its obligation.
[1] An appeal by the state does not stay the operation of an order in favor of the defendant unless specifically provided by statute or when the appeal is from an order grant…
[2] When an information is dismissed, the burden is on the state to move the trial court to keep an existing bail bond in force and effect.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An appeal by the state shall not stay the operation of an order in favor of the defendant except as provided in § 924.-071(2), or when the appeal is from an order granting a new trial.”
Establishes the statutory framework that an appeal by the state does not automatically stay orders favoring the defendant, placing the burden on the state to take affirmative action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLampley was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He was convicted in municipa…
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.
The State of Florida appeals an order of the circuit court vacating a final judgment in an appearance bond forfeiture proceeding.
Defendant, James Clifford Lampley, was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and with being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Defendant was released on bail, tried and convicted in municipal court of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Subsequently, defendant was brought to trial in the criminal court for the charge of unlawful possession of marijuana, but the information was dismissed as being duplicitous. Following this dismissal, defendant’s collateral was released by the appellee surety and he left the state. The state appealed the dismissal of the information, and the District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. See State v. Lampley, Fla.App.1971, 250 So.2d 911. Subsequently, the defendant failed to appear at the renewed proceeding and the criminal court ordered the bail bond forfeited, which forfeiture was reduced to final judgment by the circuit court. Ap-pellee surety filed a motion to vacate the final judgment of forfeiture and discharge of the appearance bond, which was granted and the state appeals.
On appeal the state urges that the trial court erred in vacating the final judgment of forfeiture and discharge of the appearance bond because the surety had not fulfilled its obligation, and the defendant was not returned to the jurisdiction of the trial court. The trial court did not, following the dismissal of the information, order that the defendant be held in custody or admitted to bail for a reasonable specified time pending the filing of a new indictment, information or affidavit as provided in CrPR 3.190(e), 33 F.S.A. Therefore, we hold that pursuant to F.S. § 924.19, F.S.A. appellant’s argument must fail. F.S. § 924.19, F.S.A., reads as follows: “When *784operation of order m favor of defendant not stayed. — An appeal by the state shall not stay the operation of an order in favor of the defendant except as provided in § 924.-071(2), or when the appeal is from an order granting a new trial.”
Accordingly, when the information against defendant was dismissed the burden was upon the state to move the trial court to keep the existing bail bond in force and effect. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the judgment of forfeiture in the absence of such affirmative action by the state.
The decision of the court below must be and hereby is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sherrod v. The Honorable Arthur J. Franza, 396 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…order of discharge or dismissal, so that nonappearance after written notice should constitute sufficient evidence of non-availability to at least shift the burden to petitioner to show continuous availability. Petitioner relies on State v. Lampley, 271 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) for the proposition that failure of the state to seek an [*1138] order staying the operation of the order of dismissal effectively terminates the court’s control over the petitioner so that written notice is no longer sufficient t…
-
Fontana v. Rice, 630 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…therefrom, unless some other charge justifies a continuation in custody. (Emphasis supplied.) As with the other rules and statutes discussed in this opinion, there appear to be virtually no cases interpreting this provision. One, State v. Lampley, 271 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), primarily concerns the next sentence in the rule (dealing with exoneration of sureties) but does suggest that the court may continue bond only upon motion by the state and only for a temporary period. Rule 3.190(e) does not, howe…
-
Williams v. State, 489 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…y was left pending. What we have is at best an agreement between counsel to go forward with the charges in Leon County instead of on the charges in Liberty County. The trial judge in a lucid opinion recognized that the decision in State v. Lampley, 271 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), would indicate the discharge of the sureties in this case but held that the later case of Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., Inc. v. State, 318 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) required a holding that the bonds be forfeited. In La…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Lampley, 250 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)