State ex rel. Shapiro v. Sandstrom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State ex rel. Shapiro v. Sandstrom

313 So. 2d 134, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14906

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 1975

DocketNo. 75-448

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 313 So. 2d 134 (State ex rel. Shapiro v. Sandstrom) 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

State ex rel. Shapiro v. Sandstrom, 313 So. 2d 134, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14906 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant, William Shapiro from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus.

Shapiro filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in which he alleged that he was being illegally held without bond on charges of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. As grounds, he stated that the proof was not evident nor was the presumption great that he was guilty of such charges and, therefore, he was entitled to bail as a matter of right. The trial court issued the writ. After a full evidentiary hearing with Shapiro and the State present, the court determined that the proof was evident and the presumption great that Shapiro had committed the crimes for which he was charged, bond was denied and the writ was discharged. It was Shapiro’s burden to take the initiative and show from the evidence that the proof of his guilt was not evident nor was [135]*135the presumption great. State ex rel. Loper v. Stack, Fla.App.1974, 291 So.2d 207, 208, and cases cited therein. The record' reflects that the testimony adduced at the ev-identiary hearing consisted mainly of that of a co-conspirator. The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to support a conviction. See Anderson v. State, Fla.1970, 241 So.2d 390, 396. We. find that there was substantial competent evidence for the trial court to make its determination and deny bond.

Shapiro’s contention on appeal that he was entitled to discharge as a matter of right because the State failed to make a return to the writ of habeas corpus is without merit as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the writ was served upon the respondent Sandstrom.

Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant, William Shapiro from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus.

Shapiro filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in which he alleged that he was being illegally held without bond on charges of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. As grounds, he stated that the proof was not evident nor was the presumption great that he was guilty of such charges and, therefore, he was entitled to bail as a matter of right. The trial court issued the writ. After a full evidentiary hearing with Shapiro and the State present, the court determined that the proof was evident and the presumption great that Shapiro had committed the crimes for which he was charged, bond was denied and the writ was discharged. It was Shapiro’s burden to take the initiative and show from the evidence that the proof of his guilt was not evident nor was [135]*135the presumption great. State ex rel. Loper v. Stack, Fla.App.1974, 291 So.2d 207, 208, and cases cited therein. The record' reflects that the testimony adduced at the ev-identiary hearing consisted mainly of that of a co-conspirator. The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to support a conviction. See Anderson v. State, Fla.1970, 241 So.2d 390, 396. We. find that there was substantial competent evidence for the trial court to make its determination and deny bond.

Shapiro’s contention on appeal that he was entitled to discharge as a matter of right because the State failed to make a return to the writ of habeas corpus is without merit as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the writ was served upon the respondent Sandstrom.

Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 So. 2d 134, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-shapiro-v-sandstrom-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack