Lane v. State, 4600
| Decision Date | 05 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 4600,4600 |
| Citation | 217 Ark. 428,230 S.W.2d 480 |
| Parties | LANE et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Claude F. Cooper, Blytheville, for appellant.
Ike Murry, Attorney General, and Arnold Adams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
This Court after having on April 10, 1950, affirmed judgments of conviction against the petitioners herein, issued an order withholding its mandate until June 1, 1950, in order to permit a petition for review by certiorari to be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States. Petitioners now state that the United States Supreme Court, due to lack of time, has not acted upon their request for review by certiorari and, due to the fact that the United States Supreme Court will shortly recess, no action can be taken on the petition for certiorari until the end of the recess, wherefore petitioners ask that this Court grant a further stay of its mandate and permit petitioners to remain free on bail pending final action by the United States Supreme Court on the petition for certiorari.
The right to bail pending appeal after conviction is at common law a matter of judicial discretion in the individual case. That rule is unchanged by the Arkansas Constitution, Art. II, secs. 8, 9, and is changed by our statute, Ark.Stats. § 43-2714, only as to certain appeals in criminal cases pending before the Supreme Court of Arkansas. The present case, involving petition for certiorari from this Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, does not come within § 43-2714. The common law rule of judicial discretion is here applicable.
The situation in the present case is the same as if Rule 46(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., were applicable. This reads:
This rule is of course not applicable in certiorari from this Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, but we quote it as illustrative of the reason for our conclusion in this case.
The majority of this Court are of the opinion that the record in the present case presents no substantial federal question which would justify the exercise of our discretion in favor of granting bail after conviction and affirmance of conviction. We therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State, 01-434
...on the common law view that the right to bail pending appeal after conviction was a matter of judicial discretion. See Lane v. State, 217 Ark. 428, 230 S.W.2d 480 (1950). As we recently pointed out, this common-law rule was modified by Act 3 of 1994, which provided the right to bail pending......
-
Casement v. State
...it does not require that bail be fixed pending appeals of all non-capital convictions. Cf. § 43-2714 (Repl.1964); Lane et al. v. State, 217 Ark. 428, 230 S.W.2d 480 (1950); Walker v. State, 137 Ark. 402, 209 S.W. 86 (1919). Rather, Rule 36.5 establishes criteria requiring release pending ap......
-
Meeks v. State, 00-303
...pending appeal. In fact, at common law, the right to bail pending appeal was a matter of judicial discretion. Lane, Smith, & Barg v. State, 217 Ark. 428, 230 S.W.2d 480 (1950). This common-law rule was modified by Act 3 of 1984, which provided the right to bail pending appeal in certain cas......
-
Carr v. City of El Dorado
... ... The state of the evidence, already summarized in this opinion, is such that we cannot say the Chancellor's ... ...