United States ex rel. Fink v. Heyd
Decision Date | 30 July 1968 |
Docket Number | Misc. No. 1332. |
Citation | 287 F. Supp. 716 |
Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. Stephen FINK, Petitioner, v. Louis HEYD, Criminal Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Ross T. Scaccia, New Orleans, La., for petitioner.
Numa Bertel, Jr., New Orleans, La., for respondent.
The petitioner asserts that there is a federal constitutional right to bail during the period pending appeal from his conviction for a State criminal offense. Finding no such right, I deny the application for habeas corpus.
On May 13, 1968, the applicant, Stephen Fink, was convicted of selling marijuana to a person over the age of 21 in violation of a Louisiana criminal statute, LSA-R.S. 40:962. Fink was only 19 when the offense was committed, and he had no prior criminal record. He was subsequently sentenced to five years in prison at hard labor in the Louisiana State Penitentiary. Fink appealed his conviction and sought to have bond set pending appeal.
LSA-Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 314, forbids bail to a person convicted of a felony who has been sentenced to a term of five years or more.1 This is in accordance with the provisions of Article I, Section 12 of the Louisiana Constitution which provides that all persons shall be bailable except certain persons charged with a capital offense and "persons convicted of felonies, provided that where a minimum sentence of less than five years at hard labor is actually imposed, bail shall be allowed pending appeal until final judgment." Therefore, the Louisiana court denied petitioner's motion for bond pending appeal. Fink then sought writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition on the denial of bond from the Louisiana Supreme Court. These were denied on June 6, 1968. On June 11, Fink filed a petition for habeas corpus in this Court seeking his release on bond pending appeal on the ground that denial of bond on appeal violated his rights under the Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." "We take it for granted that, contrary to earlier cases such as Ex parte Watkins, 7 Pet. 568, 574, 32 U.S. 568, 574, 8 L.Ed. 786, and Collins v. Johnston, 237 U.S. 502, 510, 35 S.Ct. 649, 59 L.Ed. 1071, the prohibition in the Eighth Amendment against requiring excessive bail must now be regarded as applying to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment." Pilkinton v. Circuit Court of Howell County, Missouri, 8 Cir., 1963, 324 F.2d 45, 46. See also Wansley v. Wilkerson, W.D.Va., 1967, 263 F.Supp. 54.
But Mastrian v. Hedman, 8 Cir., 1964, 326 F.2d 708, 710, cert. denied, 1964, 376 U.S. 965, 84 S.Ct. 1128, 11 L.Ed.2d 982. This would apply a fortiori to bail pending appeal after conviction.
In a per curiam opinion in Sellers v. State of Georgia, 1967, 374 F.2d 84, 85, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said there is "no absolute right to bail pending appeal." See also Iles v. Ellis, S.D. Ind., 1967, 264 F.Supp. 185, 186 (); Cf. Dameron v. Harson, W. D.La., 1966, 255 F.Supp. 533, 536-537, aff'd, 5 Cir., 1966, 364 F.2d 991, dealing with the right to bail pending trial.
There can be no doubt that the rule, so recently restated by the Fifth Circuit applies here. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Hazzard
...v. Harris, 609 F.2d 594 (2d Cir.1979), United States ex rel. Goodman v. Kehl, 456 F.2d 863 (2d Cir.1972), and United States ex rel. Fink v. Heyd, 287 F.Supp. 716 (E.D.La.1968), aff'd, 408 F.2d 7 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 895, 90 S.Ct. 192, 24 L.Ed.2d 172 (1969), all imply at most t......
-
Pisano v. Shillinger
...(10th Cir.1973); Bloss v. Michigan, 421 F.2d 903 (6th Cir.1970); In re Whitney, 421 F.2d 337 (1st Cir.1970); United States ex rel. Fink v. Heyd, 287 F.Supp. 716 (E.D.La.1968), aff'd, 408 F.2d 7 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 895, 90 S.Ct. 192, 24 L.Ed.2d 172 (1969); Genung At best, ......
-
United States v. Thompson
...sitting as Circuit Justice); United States ex rel. Smith v. Prasse, E.D.Pa., 277 F.Supp. 391, 392 (1967); United States ex rel. Fink v. Heyd, E.D.La., 287 F.Supp. 716, 717 (1968). But the right to bail is "fundamental" in that it involves issues of personal freedom in the most immediate and......
-
Huihui v. Shimoda
...dicta); United States v. Motlow, 10 F.2d 657 (7th Cir. 1926); United States ex rel. Covington v. Coparo, supra; United States ex rel. Fink v. Heyd, 287 F.Supp. 716 (E.D.La.1968), aff'd, 408 F.2d 7 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 895, 90 S.Ct. 192, 24 L.Ed.2d 172 (1969); Wansley v. W......
-
The Bail Reform Act of 1984: an Update on Preventive Detention
...States ex rel. Vitoratos v. Campbell, 410 F.Supp. 1208, 1211 (N.D. Ohio, E.D. 1976). 13. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Fink v. Heyd, 287 F.Supp. 716, 718 (E.D. La. 1968), cert. den. 396 U.S. 895. 14. 342 U.S. 1,5(1951). 15. Carlson v. London, 342 U.S. 524, 545 (1952). 16. Judiciary Act §......