Miller v. State

272 So. 2d 544, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7398
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 246 So. 2d 169
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 18, 1973·No. No. 72-776·Published

Opinion

ORDER OF THE COURT

MANN, Chief Judge.

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.

McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

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

Miller v. State, 272 So. 2d 544, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7398 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

272 So. 2d 544 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Younghans v. State
90 So. 2d 308 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1956)