Sanders v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. H--353,H--353 |
| Citation | 184 So.2d 686 |
| Parties | Billy SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Brooks Taylor, Crestview, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted on two counts of an information charging him with conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery. He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment on the first count and sentence was withheld on the second count. From this judgment of conviction and sentence he has appealed.
The case is now before the court on appellant's motion to review the order rendered by the trial court denying his motion for an order granting and fixing bail pending appeal.
Rule 6.15, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. provides that an application for bail pending appeal shall be made to the trial court, and shall be tested by the principles enunciated in Younghans v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 308; that an order denying bail shall state the reasons for denial and such order may be reviewed by the appellate court upon motion of the defendant, supported by a certified copy of the order, notice of appeal and the proceedings in the lower court concerning bail pending appeal, including any evidence relating thereto.
In Younghans v. State it is provided that in passing upon an application for bail pending appeal the trial court shall consider (1) whether the appeal is taken merely for delay or in good faith on grounds not frivolous but fairly debtable; (2) the habits of the individual as to respect for the law; (3) his local attachments to the community by way of family ties, business, or investment; (4) the severity of the punishment imposed for the offense, and any other circumstances relevant to the question of whether the defendant would be tempted to remove himself from the jurisdiction of the court.
Although the application for an order granting bail filed in this court by appellant alleges facts which could properly be considered by the trial court in initially passing upon the application for bail, appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of Younghans v. State in furnishing this court with a transcript of the proceedings and evidence taken before the lower court at the hearing on the application originally made in that court. We therefore do not have the benefit of what transpired at the hearing, nor the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nu-Air Mfg. Co. v. Frank B. Hall & Co. of New York
... ... Plaintiff-Appellant, ... FRANK B. HALL & CO. OF NEW YORK, a corporation incorporated ... under the laws of the State of New York, doing business as ... Intercredit Agency, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Inc., ... et al., Defendants-Appellees ... No ... ...
-
Good v. Wille, 80-364
...us with the probable cause affidavit, we accept as correct the trial court's finding that conviction was probable. Sanders v. State, 184 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). Petitioner took the stand at the bond hearing and testified that he resides in a condominium apartment which he owns in Mia......
-
Gonzalez v. Great Oaks Cas. Ins. Co.
... ... We disagree ... At the time of the events below, Real was not a state licensed agent for Great Oaks. Real was a licensed agent for several other insurance companies. The Gonzalez insurance policy was procured under ... ...
-
Boatright v. State
...motion for an order allowing them bail until their appeal is finally determined. The order appealed is affirmed. See Sanders v. State, (Fla.App.1966) 184 So.2d 686; Younghans v. State, (Fla.1956) 90 So.2d 308; Carbo v. United States, 82 S.Ct. 662, 7 L.Ed.2d 769; United States v. Piper, (D.C......