Jones v. Cunningham
| Decision Date | 24 November 1936 |
| Citation | 126 Fla. 333,170 So. 663 |
| Parties | JONES v. CUNNINGHAM. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original habeas corpus proceeding by Roy Jones against E. G. Cunningham, as Sheriff of Pinellas county.
Order in accordance with opinion.
COUNSEL Zewadski & Pierce, of Tampa, and Blanchard & Hoffman, of St. Petersburg, for petitioner.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In this case the petitioner procured a writ of habeas corpus from a justice of this court. The return filed shows that petitioner was held under a committment from the county judge's court pursuant to being charged in that court with the offense of murder in the first degree. That the petitioner, after being committed to jail to be held to await the action of the grand jury without bond, applied to the Honorable John U. Bird, judge of the circuit court in and for Pinellas county, for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that he was entitled to bail because the proof was not evident nor the presumption great that he is guilty of the offense charged. That on hearing in habeas corpus Judge Bird determined that petitioner was entitled to bail and fixed bail in the sum of $20,000.
We have heretofore held that if a person charged with crime is entitled to bail he is entitled to reasonable bail. The record before us shows that the accused is a negro man of very limited means and is entirely unable to procure bail in the sum of $20,000.
The transcript of the record of the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing is in the record before us and, from consideration of the entire record, we are impelled to hold that the bail fixed by the circuit judge is excessive; that the sum of $5,000 is a reasonable amount in which to require bail to be given and we, therefore, order and adjudge that the petitioner may be discharged from custody upon making appearance bond in the usual legal form in the sum of $5,000 with two good and sufficient sureties or a surety company authorized to do business in this state approved by the clerk of the circuit court of Pinellas county, Fla., conditioned upon his appearance at the next term of the circuit court of Pinellas county and from term to term of said court, and not to depart the same without leave of said court. $It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom
...court's holding for review here, reported at 274 So.2d 610 (Fla.App.3d 1973), and our earlier Florida cases of Jones v. Cunningham, 126 Fla. 333, 170 So. 663 (1936), and State ex rel. Cohen v. Wingate, 94 So. 862 (Fla.1923), wherein this Court retained jurisdiction of proceedings in habeas ......
-
State ex rel. Gerstein v. Schulz, 65-862
...State ex rel. Rubin, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 807, 812; Buchanan v. State ex rel. Hunt, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 186, 189.3 Jones v. Cunningham, 126 Fla. 333, 170 So. 663.4 Mendenhall v. Sweat, 117 Fla. 659, 158 So. 280; 4 Fla.Jur., Bail & Recognizance § 33.5 Mendenhall v. Sweat, supra, at 28......
-
State ex rel. Bardina v. Sandstrom, 75--1662
...So.2d 158. However, it has often been held that when a defendant is entitled to bail he is entitled to reasonable bail (Jones v. Cunningham, 126 Fla. 333, 170 So. 663; Mathis v. Starr, Fla.1963, 152 So.2d 161; State v. Schulz, supra), and that excessive bail, depending on the financial circ......
-
Mathis v. Starr, 32193
...is equally applicable to bailable capital offenses. (See Section 8, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, and Jones v. Cunningham, 126 Fla. 333, 170 So. 663.) The trial court erroneously construed the controlling constitutional provision herein when it attempted to require the petiti......