Maxwell v. Blount, s. O-478

Decision Date01 July 1971
Docket NumberP-45,P-48,P-44,P-49,P-47,P-43,Nos. O-478,P-46,s. O-478
Citation250 So.2d 657
PartiesWillie Wise MAXWELL, Jr., Petitioner, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., etc., Respondent. STATE of Florida ex rel. Inga Susan HARDY and Terry Neal Hardy, Petitioners, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., etc., Respondent. STATE of Florida ex rel. Ronald R. VANSCOLINA, Petitioner, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., etc., Respondent. STATE of Florida ex rel. Bruce HAYES, Petitioner, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., etc., Respondent. STATE of Florida ex rel. Wayne A. BRYANT, Petitioner, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., etc., Respondent. STATE of Florida ex rel. Donald Arthur HALES, Petitioner, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., etc., Respondent. STATE of Florida ex rel. Kirk J. BENKEN, Petitioner, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., etc., Respondent. STATE of Florida ex rel. James BROWNING, Petitioner, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., etc., Respondent. , and
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Wagner & Bertone, and J. David McFadden, Holly Hill, Judge & Warren, Daytona Beach, for petitioners.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

SPECTOR, Chief Judge.

Petition for writ of mandamus requiring the respondent to provide a preliminary hearing for the petitioners, all of whom have been charged by informations and none of whom had been held in custody for thirty days at the time the respondent had denied motions for such hearings, is denied on authority of the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal in Karz v. Overton, Case No. 71-339, filed May 14, 1971 not yet reported.

In addition to the authorities relied upon in Karz, supra, we think it noteworthy to observe that in Volume 1, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 80, Professor Wright, commenting upon proceedings before magistrates, states, at page 137:

'* * * In many cases the issue is not when the examination is held but whether it must be held at all. It has recently been said that 'our federal courts uniformly have held that there is no necessity for a preliminary hearing after a grand jury has returned an indictment.' (Citing Crump v. Anderson, 1965, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 352 F.2d 649.) For this proposition an abundance of authority may be cited. If the only purpose of the preliminary examination is to determine whether there is good cause for holding the defendant, this is an entirely logical rule. The grand jury has determined the issue of probable cause and there is no need to have a determination by the magistrate. Accordingly, it is held that where a person is first arrested after indictment, rather than on complaint, he is not entitled to a preliminary examination. * * * If he waives indictment and pleads guilty, he cannot complain of the lack of a preliminary examination. (Citing Fitts v. Willingham, C.A.10th, 1966, 359 F.2d 790.) And finally, if he is first held on a complaint, but thereafter an indictment is returned, a preliminary examination need not be held, or, if it has been commenced, it need not be concluded, for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Cameron v. State, 73--187
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 1 Febrero 1974
    ...in Florida to not require a preliminary hearing where either an indictment or information was returned or filed. Maxwell v. Blount, Fla.App.1971, 250 So.2d 657, aff'd Fla.1972, 261 So.2d 175; State ex rel. Hardy v. Blount, Fla.1972, 261 So.2d 172; Bradley v. State, Fla.App.1972, 265 So.2d 5......
  • Edell v. Blount, R--270
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 21 Septiembre 1972
    ...J., concur. 1 Anderson v. State, 241 So.2d 390, 392, 393 (Fla.1970); also see Sangaree v. Hamlin, 235 So.2d 729 (Fla.1970); and Maxwell v. Blount, 250 So.2d 657 (1 Fla.App.1971), affirmed by the Supreme Court, 261 So.2d 175 (Fla.1972).2 State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, 253 So.2d 861 (Fla.197......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT