State v. Palmer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Palmer

450 So. 2d 931, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13916

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1984

DocketNo. 84-1124

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 450 So. 2d 931 (State v. Palmer) 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 v. Palmer, 450 So. 2d 931, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13916 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The respondent Palmer pled nolo conten-dere to a charge of drug trafficking, reserving the right to appeal from his conviction on the ground that his motion to suppress had been erroneously denied. The trial court admitted him to bond pending appeal, holding that Sec. 903.133, Fla.Stat. (1983),¹ which precludes such relief in a trafficking case, was unconstitutional as applied to Palmer, on the ground that he was a good bail risk and was raising a substantial point on appeal.

The order is quashed on the authority of Echeverria v. State, 411 So.2d 357 (Fla.3d DCA 1982), adopting Hart v. State, 405 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), cert. denied, 415 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1982). Echever-ría and Hart establish the validity of the statute’s absolute prohibition of an appeal bond in these cases. It follows that the particular surrounding circumstances, which might otherwise invoke the court’s discretion to grant a bond, are totally immaterial. In sum, particularly since there is no constitutional right to bond pending appeal in the first place, Greene v. State, 238 So.2d 296 (Fla.1970); Roberson v. State of Connecticut, 501 F.2d 305 (2d Cir.1974), a statute which constitutionally denies bond in every such instance simply and logically cannot be unconstitutional “as applied” to an individual one.

Certiorari granted.²

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The respondent Palmer pled nolo conten-dere to a charge of drug trafficking, reserving the right to appeal from his conviction on the ground that his motion to suppress had been erroneously denied. The trial court admitted him to bond pending appeal, holding that Sec. 903.133, Fla.Stat. (1983),¹ which precludes such relief in a trafficking case, was unconstitutional as applied to Palmer, on the ground that he was a good bail risk and was raising a substantial point on appeal.

The order is quashed on the authority of Echeverria v. State, 411 So.2d 357 (Fla.3d DCA 1982), adopting Hart v. State, 405 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), cert. denied, 415 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1982). Echever-ría and Hart establish the validity of the statute’s absolute prohibition of an appeal bond in these cases. It follows that the particular surrounding circumstances, which might otherwise invoke the court’s discretion to grant a bond, are totally immaterial. In sum, particularly since there is no constitutional right to bond pending appeal in the first place, Greene v. State, 238 So.2d 296 (Fla.1970); Roberson v. State of Connecticut, 501 F.2d 305 (2d Cir.1974), a statute which constitutionally denies bond in every such instance simply and logically cannot be unconstitutional “as applied” to an individual one.

Certiorari granted.²

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 So. 2d 931, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-palmer-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack