State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom
| Decision Date | 31 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 43504,43504 |
| Citation | 285 So.2d 409 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida ex rel. William SCALDEFERRI, Petitioner, v. Jack SANDSTROM, Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation of Dade County, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jack R. Nageley, Miami Beach, for petitioner.
Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State's Atty., for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus wherein petitioner, held in the Dade County Jail for trial on a felony charge, seeks reduction of a $15,000 appearance bond imposed by the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit.
We of course have concurrent jurisdiction in habeas corpus with the district and circuit courts. 1 This does not mean, however, that a petitioner has three direct, repetitious applications available to him, one to each of these courts in sequence upon the same subject matter. 2 However, relief through habeas corpus cannot be denied a petitioner in the district court or in the Supreme Court, should the trial court for some reason Refuse to hear or should Frustrate the petitioner upon his petition in habeas corpus, for he is constitutionally guaranteed this basic right. 3 We shall here endeavor, however, to delineate the normal and orderly manner of pursuing the right in the appropriate court.
The petition before us is for consideration of possible error or denial of due process, in particular upon an alleged denial of reasonable bail before trial. CrPR 3.130(c), 33 F.S.A. Inasmuch as the district court proceeding was a 'judgment' by virtue of its dismissal on the merits (albeit without prejudice to proceed in the circuit court), it follows that the form of the petition filed here as a second petition for 'habeas corpus' cannot be entertained as such in light of Fla.Stat. § 79.10, F.S.A., and State ex rel. Miller v. Kelly, 88 So.2d 118 (Fla.1956). However, under new Article V, § 2(a), we may proceed to entertain a petition which has merit, in whatever form is proper and in this instance it would appear that the matter before us is in reality a petition for writ of Certiorari to the district court's opinion upon conflict. We shall consider it as such. The present cause was timely brought within the 30 days for review here as a petition for certiorari (as we have considered it).
We find conflict between the district 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 corpus filed originally here, where bail was challenged as excessive. We are aware of those other decisions which express a Preference to remand to the trial court where a record is required to be made. It will be hereinafter seen, however, that there is a sufficient record here upon which to act.
Judge Norman Hendry's Third District opinion in State ex rel. Renaldi v. Sandstrom, 276 So.2d 109 (1973), and Judge Gerald Mager's Fourth District opinion (cited in Sandstrom) in Janes v. Heidtman, 272 So.2d 207 (Fla.App.1973), have considered the problem of concurrent jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases. These opinions contain excellent reviews of the question and agree in their correct conclusions that the circuit court is Not empowered generally to review by habeas corpus the orders of courts over which the circuit court does not have appellate jurisdiction, particularly as to the legal sufficiency of the order sought to be reviewed, although the circuit court may entertain such a proceeding and discharge a petitioner held under an illegal or void order. Richardson v. State ex rel. Milton, 219 So.2d 77, 79 (Fla.App.3d 1969).
There is jurisdiction in our circuit courts to act in habeas corpus regarding bail, without regard to their appellate authority to review orders of the court whose earlier order on bail is brought into question. State v. Schulz, 180 So.2d 367 (Fla.App.3d 1965). This basic habeas corpus review is essential to insure constitutional guarantees of liberty (Fla.Const. Art. I, § 2--Basic Rights), and right to bail (Art. I, § 14).
Renaldi, while recognizing this right of review regarding matters of bail as being vested concurrently in the circuit and the appellate courts, 'defers' to the circuit court as being better equipped for essential fact-finding in reaching a conclusion. Art. V, §§ 4 and 5; CrPR 3.130(c)(2).
Renaldi concluded that the more efficient and proper jurisdiction of the concurrent courts available for review of bail by habeas corpus, would be the circuit court rather than the appellate courts, referring to the lack of facilities for fact finding on a matter of bail reduction which would face the appellate court system, citing State ex rel. Ake v. Swanson, 116 Fla. 464, 156 So. 481 (1934); State ex rel. Davis v. City of Avon Park, 117 Fla. 565, 158 So. 159, 98 A.L.R. 230 (1934); and quoting from our own State ex rel. Watkins v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638 (1932).
We continue to agree with the view that concurrent jurisdiction in considering matters of bail should be exercised in the circuit court. In Lambert v. State, 151 So.2d 675, 677 (Fla.App.1st 1963), the court said in this respect:
'By statute, the trial court and any justice of the appellate court has concurrent jurisdiction to set bail pending appeal, but when the trial court has acted in the matter, this court will not entertain another original application to fix or modify bail, although upon appropriate proceedings the reasonableness of bail and the alleged abuses of discretion may be reviewed in this court.'
If a proceeding on bail is filed in the appellate court as a petition for habeas corpus And is accompanied by a sufficient record and affidavits for a determination in the appellate court it is proper for review there. Or if there has been a circuit court adjudication upon Motion either to increase or reduce bail under CrPR 3.130(f) And there is a sufficient accompanying record thereon, then it is proper in that instance also, for consideration in the appellate court upon original habeas corpus. Certiorari may also lie (as Sub judice) even though the matter has been treated below on habeas corpus.
Habeas corpus proceedings are historically informal with affidavits allowed which will readily provide the necessary record for appellate review. Fla.Stat. § 79.07, F.S.A. This is not only in the interest of an economy of litigation but it is also a solution in those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buss v. Reichman
...pursuant to an order from another circuit court, the scope of habeas review is extremely limited. State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So.2d 409 (Fla.1973). [T]he circuit court is Not empowered generally to review by habeas corpus the orders of courts over which the circuit court doe......
-
Murray v. Regier
...followed a long line of cases that recognized similar limitations on a circuit court's habeas review. See, e.g., State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So.2d 409 (Fla.1973) (holding that circuit court may entertain habeas corpus proceeding and discharge petitioner held under an illegal......
-
Harvard v. Singletary
...of the district courts of appeal and the circuit courts. See art. V, §§ 4(b)(3), 5(b); see generally State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 1973). For the reasons that follow, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction in this case and elect to transfer the petition t......
-
Stansel v. State, 74--685
...matter ourselves upon the record which was made below following the procedure approved by the Supreme Court in State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, Fla.1973, 285 So.2d 409. In that case the court '. . . Or if there has been a circuit court adjudication upon Motion either to increase or r......