ROBIN HOOD BELL, APPELLANT,
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.
Bell, an indigent defendant represented by the Public Defender, sought bail pending appeal. The trial court conditioned consideration of a supersedeas bond on Bell first reimbursing the state for all trial and appeal costs and retaining private counsel—conditions the court found impossible for an indigent to meet. The appellate court vacated the order, holding that imposing impossible conditions as prerequisites to bail consideration violates the constitutional right of access to courts.
The court held that the trial court's order violates the Florida Constitution's guarantee of access to courts. Imposing impossible conditions as prerequisites to bail consideration forecloses the court's ability to hear the merits of the bail petition and is therefore impermissible.
[1] A trial court cannot condition a defendant's right to have a motion for bail pending appeal considered on the defendant's ability to pay costs and fees when the defendant…
[2] Requiring an indigent defendant to meet an impossible financial burden before considering their entitlement to bail pending appeal violates the constitutional right to ac…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”
Constitutional provision from Florida Constitution Section 21 that the court invoked to strike down the impossible conditions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBell was adjudicated indigent and had the Public Defender appointed for both trial and appeal. He filed a motion for a supersedeas bond pending appeal…
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
ON PETITION TO REVIEW ORDER DENYING SUPER-SEDEAS BOND
Bell, adjudicated indigent and represented at trial and on appeal by the Public Defender, applied for bail pending appeal. The trial judge’s order reads as follows:
“THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard upon Defendant’s Motion for Supersedeas Bond, the Court having heard the argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
“1. Defendant was found to be indigent and the Public Defender was appointed to represent him in this cause.
“2. Defendant has executed an Affidavit of Insolvency for purposes of appeal in this case, and the Public Defender has been appointed to represent him on said appeal. It is therefore':
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that should the Defendant reimburse the State of Florida for all costs and monies expended for the preparation of the transcript of the record in his jury trial, the Public Defender fees as ordered by the Court, the costs of his trial, the filing fee for his appeal in the Second District Court of Appeal, and should the Defendant show to the Court that he has retained a private attorney to prosecute his appeal and is now solvent, the matter of a Supersedeas Bond will be considered by the Court. Otherwise, Defendant’s Motion for a Supersedeas Bond be and the same is hereby denied.”
The effect of the order is to impose upon Bell a condition previously determined to be impossible as a condition to access to the court for consideration of his entitlement to bail, which might take the form of release on his own recognizance or arguably some other arrangement for security which he might procure but which would not defeat his entitlement to the services of the Public Defender. We recognize the difficulties inherent in the question whether *362an indigent might be entitled to release pending appeal, but the action of the trial court in this instance forecloses the matter before the merits can be heard. This is a violation of Section 21 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., which provides that “The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.” To require of Bell that he perform an impossible burden before his petition is considered in the light of Younghans v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 308, as required by Rule 6.15 F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., is impermissible. The order is therefore vacated and the matter remanded. See Annotations, 19 A.L.R. 807; 77 A.L.R. 1235; 1 L.Ed.2d 1564; 8 A.L.R.Fed. 586; Bandy v. United States, 1960, 81 S.Ct. 197, 5 L.Ed.2d 218 (per Douglas, J., as Circuit Justice); Comment, 21 U.Fla.L.Rev. 117; 8A Moore, Federal Practice §§ 46.02-46.10.
LILES and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2001)…8). Requiring a defendant in a criminal case to pay court-appointed counsel fees and certain appellate costs as a condition for being heard on a motion for supersedeas bail following conviction has been struck down on the same ground. Bell v. State, 281 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). And requiring payment of a sum of money into the registry of the court unrelated to filing fees as a condition for defending a lawsuit has long been declared constitutionally impermissible. Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct…
-
G.B.B. Invs., Inc. v. Hinterkopf, 343 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…8). Requiring a defendant in a criminal case to pay court-appointed counsel fees and certain appellate costs as a condition for being heard on a motion for supersedeas bail following conviction has been struck down on the same ground. Bell v. State, 281 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). And requiring payment of a sum of money into the registry of the court unrelated to filing fees as a condition for defending a lawsuit has long been declared constitutionally impermissible. Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct…
-
Bell v. State, 287 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Younghans v. State, 90 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1956)