BYRON JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a motion for a supersedeas bond, finding the appellant did not make a sufficient showing to the trial judge. However, the denial was without prejudice, allowing the appellant to be fully heard by the trial judge on the matter.
The motion for a supersedeas bond is denied because the appellant did not make a sufficient showing to the trial judge. However, the denial is without prejudice to the appellant's right to be fully heard by the trial judge.
“the appellant, according to the transcript of the record herein, did not make a sufficient showing before the trial judge to justify the allowance of a supersedeas bond.”
Establishes the primary reason for denying the motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought an order fixing a supersedeas bond. The trial judge, before any testimony was presented, stated, "I decline to fix a supersedeas …
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 Supersedeas Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The motion of appellant for an order fixing a supersedeas bond must be denied because the appellant, according to the transcript of the record herein, did not make a sufficient showing before the trial judge to justify the allowance of a supersedeas bond. However, we observe from the record that the trial judge, prior to the introduction of any testimony and before granting the prosecuting attorney’s request to be allowed to present testimony, stated to counsel for appellant: “I decline to fix a supersedeas bond”. It may be that such peremptory ruling of the trial judge caused appellant to deem it useless to offer witnesses on his behalf in an attempt to show that he was entitled to a supersedeas bond.
It is our view that under such circumstances this order denying appellant’s motion for an order fixing a supersedeas bond should be without prejudice to appellant’s, right to be fully heard by the trial judge in order that appellant may, if he can, present evidence which would establish that he is entitled, in the exercise of the sound judi cial discretion of the trial judge, to a super-sedeas bond.
_ . , It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and SEBRING, HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.