Murray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murray v. State

172 So. 2d 487, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4351

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 1965

DocketNo. 64-360

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 172 So. 2d 487 (Murray 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

Murray v. State, 172 So. 2d 487, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4351 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order of the trial court summarily denying relief under Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. Ch. 924 Appendix, sought on motion of appellant filed while he was serving a sentence imposed on convictions following trial on two informations charging him with forgery and with uttering a forged instrument. The ground urged by appellant for relief was that he was not at any time afforded a preliminary hearing before a magistrate. That contention was not accompanied by a showing in the motion of any harm or prejudice resulting. The contention lacks merit, and the trial court was eminently correct in so concluding. Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So.2d 264, cert. den. 83 S.Ct. 153, 371 U.S. 879, 9 L.Ed.2d 117; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 38. In the Hoffman case, the first district court of appeal, in an opinion authored by Judge Wigginton, said:

“ * * * By his first point he contends that his constitutional right to due process of law was violated because of the state’s failure to promptly grant him a preliminary hearing after his arrest and before his arraignment. This contention has been held to be wholly without merit. In Baugus v. State, it was held that the procedure of hearing a case preliminarily under F.S. Chapter 902, F.S.A., is not a step in due process of law, nor is it a prerequisite to a criminal prosecution or filing of an indictment. It serves only to determine whether or not probable cause exists to hold a person for trial, and a prosecution may be instituted and maintained regardless of such an investigation.”

Accordingly the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order of the trial court summarily denying relief under Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. Ch. 924 Appendix, sought on motion of appellant filed while he was serving a sentence imposed on convictions following trial on two informations charging him with forgery and with uttering a forged instrument. The ground urged by appellant for relief was that he was not at any time afforded a preliminary hearing before a magistrate. That contention was not accompanied by a showing in the motion of any harm or prejudice resulting. The contention lacks merit, and the trial court was eminently correct in so concluding. Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So.2d 264, cert. den. 83 S.Ct. 153, 371 U.S. 879, 9 L.Ed.2d 117; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 38. In the Hoffman case, the first district court of appeal, in an opinion authored by Judge Wigginton, said:

“ * * * By his first point he contends that his constitutional right to due process of law was violated because of the state’s failure to promptly grant him a preliminary hearing after his arrest and before his arraignment. This contention has been held to be wholly without merit. In Baugus v. State, it was held that the procedure of hearing a case preliminarily under F.S. Chapter 902, F.S.A., is not a step in due process of law, nor is it a prerequisite to a criminal prosecution or filing of an indictment. It serves only to determine whether or not probable cause exists to hold a person for trial, and a prosecution may be instituted and maintained regardless of such an investigation.”

Accordingly the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 So. 2d 487, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-state-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack