Sirianni v. Coleman, 79-383
| Decision Date | 24 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-383,79-383 |
| Citation | 379 So.2d 176 |
| Parties | Rosemary SIRIANNI, Petitioner, v. Melvin C. COLEMAN, Sheriff of Orange County, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Frank E. Merrick of Law Offices of James M. Russ, Orlando, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Edwin H. Duff, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.
This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus wherein the Petitioner requests that this court set reasonable bail pending her re-trial on a charge of first degree murder.
Petitioner was indicted for first degree murder and held for trial without bail. After four days of deliberation, the trial jury could not reach a verdict, so on November 10, 1979, the trial judge declared a mistrial and discharged the jury. The case has been re-set for trial on January 21, 1980. Following the mistrial, Petitioner's counsel filed in the trial court a motion for admission to bail which, at the time the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed here, had not been heard. However, a supplement to the Petition was filed showing that the trial court heard and denied the motion.
In denying the motion for bail, the trial court found, among other things, that there was substantial evidence that defendant carefully planned to kill the victim; that there was evidence of inculpatory statements made by defendant; that defendant had filed a document alleging insolvency; that defendant had no known ties to Florida or the local community, but had her roots elsewhere, and that defendant would be a poor risk if allowed to go free on bail pending her re-trial. He concluded that the proof was evident and the presumption great that defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree as charged, and he thereupon denied bail.
Neither the defendant nor the State offered additional evidence at the bail hearing. The State said it relied on the evidence and proofs presented at the trial. The defense did not object to this procedure, and it did not present to this court a transcript of the trial. The defendant asserts that the fact of the mistrial because the jury could not agree is sufficient evidence that the proof of guilt is not evident and that the presumption of guilt is not great. She also asserts that the State has the burden of showing that the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption is great. We disagree with both positions.
Until adjudged guilty, all persons charged with a crime are entitled to release on reasonable bail unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great. Art. I, Sec. 14, Fla.Const. (Decl. of Rights); Rule 3.130, Fla.R.Cr.P. Where charged with a capital or life felony, the Defendant has the burden of showing that the proof of guilt is not evident or the presumption great. Larkin v. State, 51 So.2d 185 (Fla.1951); State ex rel. Loper v. Stack, 291 So.2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1974). The defendant does not carry that burden simply by...
To continue reading
Request your trial