Hirsch v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hirsch v. State

864 So. 2d 41, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18457, 2003 WL 22867616

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 2003

DocketNo. 5D03-3706

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 864 So. 2d 41 (Hirsch v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hirsch v. State, 864 So. 2d 41, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18457, 2003 WL 22867616 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Petitioner, Patricia Langford Hirsch, seeks a writ of habeas corpus to obtain her release from jail, alleging that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke her post-trial 'supersedeas appellate bond before this court had issued its mandate in her appeal.

First, as set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(h)(4), orders relating to post-trial release are reviewed by the court by motion, not by a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Second, contrary to petitioner’s argument, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(d), as amended in 1996, expressly provides that in criminal cases, the lower tribunal retains jurisdiction to consider matters relating to post-trial release under rule 9.140(h). Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is construed as a motion to review the order revoking post-trial supersedeas bond and is denied.

PETITION CONSTRUED AS MOTION AND DENIED.

PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIFFIN, J.

Petitioner, Patricia Langford Hirsch, seeks a writ of habeas corpus to obtain her release from jail, alleging that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke her post-trial 'supersedeas appellate bond before this court had issued its mandate in her appeal.

First, as set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(h)(4), orders relating to post-trial release are reviewed by the court by motion, not by a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Second, contrary to petitioner’s argument, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(d), as amended in 1996, expressly provides that in criminal cases, the lower tribunal retains jurisdiction to consider matters relating to post-trial release under rule 9.140(h). Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is construed as a motion to review the order revoking post-trial supersedeas bond and is denied.

PETITION CONSTRUED AS MOTION AND DENIED.

PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

864 So. 2d 41, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18457, 2003 WL 22867616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsch-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack