Sitko v. Gill

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Sitko v. Gill

403 A.2d 681, 121 R.I. 974, 1979 R.I. LEXIS 2023

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 29, 1979

DocketM. P. No. 79-140

StatusPublished

This text of 403 A.2d 681 (Sitko v. Gill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sitko v. Gill, 403 A.2d 681, 121 R.I. 974, 1979 R.I. LEXIS 2023 (R.I. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a petition for habeas corpus in which the petitioner claims that bail set by a Superior Court justice was excessive. The petition was [975]*975heard by us in open court on June 28, 1979. It quickly became obvious that the petitioner’s claim of excessiveness would fail because of his failure to provide us with a transcript showing what transpired when the bail was set. Consequently, the petition is denied.

David L. Martin, Public Defender, for petitioner. Dennis J. Roberts II, Attorney General, for respondent.

Our denial is without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to return to the Superior Court, where he may seek bail and bring to the court’s attention the length of his continued incarceration since arraignment, the extent to which necessary pretrial proceedings have delayed the trial, and any other factors which might be relevant to a determination of reasonable bail.

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

This is a petition for habeas corpus in which the petitioner claims that bail set by a Superior Court justice was excessive. The petition was [975]*975heard by us in open court on June 28, 1979. It quickly became obvious that the petitioner’s claim of excessiveness would fail because of his failure to provide us with a transcript showing what transpired when the bail was set. Consequently, the petition is denied.

David L. Martin, Public Defender, for petitioner. Dennis J. Roberts II, Attorney General, for respondent.

Our denial is without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to return to the Superior Court, where he may seek bail and bring to the court’s attention the length of his continued incarceration since arraignment, the extent to which necessary pretrial proceedings have delayed the trial, and any other factors which might be relevant to a determination of reasonable bail.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 A.2d 681, 121 R.I. 974, 1979 R.I. LEXIS 2023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sitko-v-gill-ri-1979.