Miller v. State
This text of 272 So. 2d 544 (Miller 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.
Opinion
ORDER OF THE COURT
Miller asks us to review an order of the trial court denying bail pending appeal and to fix bail ourselves. His application for admission to bail was filed with the trial court. The judge, without holding any hearing, affixed a rubber stamp which reads “Motion Heard, Considered and”, to which someone wrote “Denied” and .the Judge signed it. This procedure plainly violates Rule 6.15(c), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., which states “When the lower court denies bail pending appeal, it shall state in its order of denial the reasons therefor. Rule 6.15 also makes specific reference to Younghans v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 308. A reading of that case will afford ample guidance for handling applications for bail pending appeal.
[545]*545Instead of setting bail ourselves, which we are ill equipped to do, we quash the order under review and remand the matter to the trial court for proceedings complying with Rule 6.15, F.A.R. and Younghans.
Order quashed and application for bail remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
272 So. 2d 544, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.