Logan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Logan v. State

555 So. 2d 875, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2668, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6402, 1989 WL 136810

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 1989

DocketNo. 89-2202

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 555 So. 2d 875 (Logan 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

Logan v. State, 555 So. 2d 875, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2668, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6402, 1989 WL 136810 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

This is a proceeding for habeas corpus to secure post-trial release. A verdict of guilty was rendered against the petitioner who had been at large on bail prior to trial. The trial court did not adjudicate the petitioner guilty after the verdict was rendered, but directed that petitioner be taken into custody and committed to the proper official. The petitioner argues that under Article I, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, he was entitled to release on reasonable bail until adjudicated guilty, citing Hancock v. State, 386 So.2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). For the reasons stated below, we deny the writ.

The petitioner’s argument was correct prior to January 1, 1983, when Article I, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution was amended as a result of the November, 1982 general election.¹ The present provision relates only to pretrial release and detention. Under the current constitution, there is no right to bail after a verdict of guilty has been rendered. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.550, after a verdict of guilty is rendered and before final judgment is pronounced, the court has the power and discretion to place a defendant in custody. Until there exists a basis to appeal under section 924.06, Florida Statutes (1987) or Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b), there can be no appeal and a defendant is not entitled to post-trial release under either Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.691(a) or Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(e).

The petitioner has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in remanding him to custody at this stage of the criminal proceeding rather than continuing his bail.

WRIT DENIED.

DANIEL, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.

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

COWART, Judge.

This is a proceeding for habeas corpus to secure post-trial release. A verdict of guilty was rendered against the petitioner who had been at large on bail prior to trial. The trial court did not adjudicate the petitioner guilty after the verdict was rendered, but directed that petitioner be taken into custody and committed to the proper official. The petitioner argues that under Article I, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, he was entitled to release on reasonable bail until adjudicated guilty, citing Hancock v. State, 386 So.2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). For the reasons stated below, we deny the writ.

The petitioner’s argument was correct prior to January 1, 1983, when Article I, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution was amended as a result of the November, 1982 general election.¹ The present provision relates only to pretrial release and detention. Under the current constitution, there is no right to bail after a verdict of guilty has been rendered. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.550, after a verdict of guilty is rendered and before final judgment is pronounced, the court has the power and discretion to place a defendant in custody. Until there exists a basis to appeal under section 924.06, Florida Statutes (1987) or Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b), there can be no appeal and a defendant is not entitled to post-trial release under either Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.691(a) or Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(e).

The petitioner has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in remanding him to custody at this stage of the criminal proceeding rather than continuing his bail.

WRIT DENIED.

DANIEL, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 So. 2d 875, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2668, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6402, 1989 WL 136810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logan-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack