Taylor v. State
Opinion
[577]*577WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
By petition for writ of habeas corpus a review is sought of an order denying pretrial bail in a capital case. The judge below found “that the proof of the defendant’s guilt in this case is evident and the presumption is great that the defendant committed the acts as charged in the indictment.”
In denying bail the judge below apparently did not consider the case of Arthur v. Harper, 371 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In that case it was held that the magistrate does have discretion to admit persons accused of capital crimes to bail even though the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great. We agree with the reasoning in that case and hold that only persons accused of non-capital crimes are entitled to bail as a matter of right; but that persons accused of capital and life imprisonment crimes may be admitted to bail, in the sound discretion of the trial court judge, or committing magistrate.1
In order to allow the trial judge to enter his complete findings or to conduct such further hearings as he may deem appropriate, we relinquish jurisdiction and remand this cause to the trial court for twenty days. Upon the completion of any hearing, or upon reconsideration without further hearing, the trial judge should submit his findings and his order for our further review to determine whether to issue the writ.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
388 So. 2d 576 (Taylor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.