ARNOLD FLICKER, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE EDWIN DUFF, II, SHERIFF OF VOLUSIA 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.
Arnold Flicker petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus seeking bail pending trial for first-degree murder. The Florida District Court of Appeal denied the petition because Flicker failed to provide a record or affidavits supporting his allegations, and instead relied on bare assertions and mere directions to the clerk.
A petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking review of a bail denial must be accompanied by a sufficient record and affidavits for determination by the appellate court; bare allegations without supporting documentation are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for the extraordinary writ.
[1] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must establish a prima facie case for relief.
[2] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal from a denial of bail.
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“It is elementary that the office of the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the restraint of any person, and a petition for same must make out a prima facie case.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that habeas corpus petitions must present a prima facie case with supporting documentation, not merely bare allegations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlicker sought bail beginning October 16, 1973, and appeared at a preliminary hearing on November 9-10, 1973, where the committing magistrate found pr…
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 Notice Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Chief Judge.
By petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner, Arnold Flicker, seeks bail pending trial for the crime of first degree murder. Petitioner alleges that he has made numerous efforts to obtain bond beginning on or about the 16th day of October, 1973, and that at a preliminary hearing held on November 9-10, 1973, the committing magistrate after conclusion of said proceedings “did find that the proof of the defendant Flicker’s guilt appeared to be evident, presumption of defendant’s guilt appeared to be great, and therefore the defendant’s application for bail submitted at the begin ning of that hearing was denied. Petitioner further alleges that in subsequent proceedings in the name of habeas corpus and petition for rehearing, he sought application for bail — the last denial of same being on the 7th day of January, 1974.
The instant petition alleges that no evidence was presented before any court which would support the denial of petitioner’s right to bail in that all evidence of his alleged guilt in the instant cause that has been considered by the Circuit Court and the committing magistrate is circumstantial or hearsay evidence. The petitioner fails to support the foregoing allegations by any record other than the bald allegations recited. Petitioner’s attorney does attach to the instant petition extensive directions to the clerk to prepare and transmit to this Court the extensive record that has been developed concerning this question.
It is elementary that the office of the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the restraint of any person, and a petition for same must make out a prima facie case. The bald allegations made by petitioner are not supported by any record. A petition for writ of habeas corpus does not serve as a notice of appeal from the denial of bail. As stated by Mr. Justice Dekle in State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1973):
“If a proceeding on bail is filed in. the appellate court as a petition for habeas corpus and is accompanied by a sufficient record and affidavits for a determination in the appellate court it is proper for review there.”
As stated above, the subject petition is not accompanied by any record nor any affidavits for determination or consideration by this Court. Directions to the clerk filed by petitions of attorney are not proper in the original proceeding of habeas corpus. An appeal was available to petitioner for an orderly review of the grievances alleged. State v. Thursby, 184 So. 2d 505 (1 Fla. App.1966).
The subject petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Piccirillo v. Louie L. Wainwright, 382 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…er the inmate in fact committed the infraction charged and, if so, whether mitigating circumstances exist. A proceeding in habeas corpus is civil rather than criminal in nature,3 and the petition “must make out a prima facie case.” Flicker v. Duff, 290 So. 2d 129, 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Technical rules of pleading do not apply to petitions for habe-as corpus,4 but the law requires that substance be supplied by way of sworn factual allegations or evidentiary attachments to the petition.5 Accordingly, the j…
-
DeANGELO v. Strickland, 426 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…circuit court on April 8, 1982. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether the petitioner is legally imprisoned or restrained of his liberty, and a petition for habeas corpus must make out a prima facie case. Flicker v. Duff, 290 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). The petition sub judice does not make out a prima facie case in that petitioner does not allege that he is currently being held illegally in prison. Therefore, the trial court did not err in summarily denying the petition. AFF…
-
Simons v. State, 555 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…court has not been informed as to the reasons for the trial court’s action in setting a $15,000 bond, petitioner has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s order. Flicker v. Duff, 290 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); State ex rel. Smith v. Untreiner, 246 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 250 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1971).1 PETITION DENIED. JOANOS, THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . There is authority for concurrent jurisdiction in the cir…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. William Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1973)
- Honig v. Klein, 184 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Joseph B. Hyde v. Thursby, 184 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)