Hirsch v. State

864 So. 2d 41, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18457, 2003 WL 22867616
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 5, 2003·No. No. 5D03-3706·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

864 So. 2d 41 (Hirsch v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vantice L. Beshears, Jr. v. State
207 So. 3d 928 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)