261 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1972), 41427, State ex rel. Hardy v. Blount

Docket Nº:41427--41431.
Citation:261 So.2d 172
Opinion Judge:Author: Adkins
Party Name:STATE of Florida ex rel. Inga Susan HARDY and Terry Neal Hardy, Petitioners, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., Respondent. STATE of Florida ex rel. James BROWNING, Petitioner, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., Respondent. STATE of Florida ex rel. Bruce HAYES, Petitioner, v. Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., Respondent. STATE of Florida ex rel. Wayne A. BRYANT, Petitioner, v. Uriel BLOUN
Attorney:Dan R. Warren, of Judge & Warren, Daytona Beach, for petitioners.
Case Date:April 05, 1972
Court:Supreme Court of Florida
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 172

261 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1972)

STATE of Florida ex rel. Inga Susan HARDY and Terry Neal Hardy, Petitioners,

v.

Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., Respondent.

STATE of Florida ex rel. James BROWNING, Petitioner,

v.

Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., Respondent.

STATE of Florida ex rel. Bruce HAYES, Petitioner,

v.

Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., Respondent.

STATE of Florida ex rel. Wayne A. BRYANT, Petitioner,

v.

Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., Respondent.

STATE of Florida ex rel. Donald Arthur HALES, Petitioner,

v.

Uriel BLOUNT, Jr., Respondent.

Nos. 41427--41431.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 5, 1972

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1972.

Page 173

Dan R. Warren, of Judge & Warren, Daytona Beach, for petitioners.

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

ADKINS, Justice.

By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in these cases, (250 So.2d 657), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (State ex rel. Shailer v. Booher, 241 So.2d 720) on the same point of law. Fla.Const., art. V, § 4, F.S.A.

The petitioner is each of the cases Sub judice was charged by information with the commission of a felony. No one had been held in custody for thirty days at the time the respondent Judge denied motions for preliminary hearings. In original mandamus proceeding, the District Court of Appeal, First District (250 So.2d 657) held that petitioners were not entitled to preliminary hearings because an information charging each with the commission of a felony had been filed.

In State ex rel. Shailer v. Booher, Supra, the state attorney had filed an information charging a felony and thereafter the defendant was denied a preliminary hearing. The trial judge entered a peremptory writ in habeas corpus proceeding directing the sheriff to have the defendant before a committing magistrate on a day certain, or, in the alternative, to release him from custody. No appeal was taken, but the state attorney filed a petition for writ of prohibition in the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District. The District Court of Appeal held that prohibition proceedings were improper, but in denying the petition for writ of prohibition said, by way of dictum:

'The underlying issue in this case is whether or not a person arrested after an information has been filed against him has a right to a preliminary hearing, and if so, how may that right be enforced when the same is not voluntarily accorded to the arrested person.' (241 So.2d p. 722)

'In our opinion, until some other means is provided either by the Florida Supreme Court through its rule-making power or by the legislature of the State of Florida, one who has a right to a preliminary hearing which is not voluntarily accorded to him as contemplated by the statutes of this State (F.S.1969, section 901.06 and section 901.23, F.S.1969) should apply to an appropriate court for a writ of mandamus.' (p. 723)

There is conflict and we have jurisdiction.

A preliminary hearing is for the purpose of determining if probable cause exists to hold one accused of a crime for trial. The whole proceedings partake of the nature of an inquiry and, outside of being conducted by a magistrate, bears little or no resemblance to a trial. See 6 F.L.P., Criminal...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP