STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. WILLIAM SHAPIRO, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK SANDSTROM, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, 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.
William Shapiro appealed the discharge of his habeas corpus petition challenging his detention without bond on first-degree murder charges. The trial court found sufficient evidence that the proof was evident and the presumption great of his guilt, and denied bail. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Shapiro bore the burden to show insufficient evidence and that the record contained substantial competent evidence supporting the trial court's determination.
The trial court properly denied bond and discharged the writ because Shapiro bore the burden of showing insufficient evidence, and the record contained substantial competent evidence supporting the court's finding that the proof was evident and the presumption great that he committed the crimes. Uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to meet this burden.
[1] A defendant seeking a writ of habeas corpus to obtain bail bears the burden of showing that the proof of guilt is not evident and the presumption of guilt is not great.
[2] The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to support a finding that the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption of guilt is great for the purp…
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“It was Shapiro's burden to take the initiative and show from the evidence that the proof of his guilt was not evident nor was the presumption great.”
Establishes that the burden of proving insufficient evidence for bail rests with the defendant challenging detention.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShapiro was charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and held without bond. He filed a habeas corpus petition all…
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 Accomplice Testimony Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant, William Shapiro from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus.
Shapiro filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in which he alleged that he was being illegally held without bond on charges of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. As grounds, he stated that the proof was not evident nor was the presumption great that he was guilty of such charges and, therefore, he was entitled to bail as a matter of right. The trial court issued the writ. After a full evidentiary hearing with Shapiro and the State present, the court determined that the proof was evident and the presumption great that Shapiro had committed the crimes for which he was charged, bond was denied and the writ was discharged. It was Shapiro’s burden to take the initiative and show from the evidence that the proof of his guilt was not evident nor was the presumption great. State ex rel. Loper v. Stack, Fla.App.1974, 291 So. 2d 207, 208, and cases cited therein. The record' reflects that the testimony adduced at the evidentiary hearing consisted mainly of that of a co-conspirator. The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to support a conviction. See Anderson v. State, Fla.1970, 241 So. 2d 390, 396. We. find that there was substantial competent evidence for the trial court to make its determination and deny bond.
Shapiro’s contention on appeal that he was entitled to discharge as a matter of right because the State failed to make a return to the writ of habeas corpus is without merit as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the writ was served upon the respondent Sandstrom.
Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Lakowski, 46 Fla. Supp. 165 (Broward Cty. Ct. 1977)…tant exceptions to or clarifications of the parol evidence rule is that parol evidence is admissible to prove a condition to the written contract for the purpose of showing that there existed no binding contract. Compare, Beach Keys, Inc. v. Girvin, 313 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). That the plaintiff, by virtue of his delay in the performance of the contract, i.e., the physical removal of the items of personal property that were stored in the garage of the defendant, breached the terms of the contract. Se…
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. State, 241 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1970)
- State ex rel. Edward E. Loper v. Stack, 291 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)