Opinion · Fllaw Florida

MILLER v. STATE, 272 So.2d 544 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1973)

272 So.2d 544

Type
Opinion
Court
Fllaw Florida
Jurisdiction
Fllaw
Date
1973-01-18
Topic
general

MILLER v. STATE, 272 So.2d 544 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1973) ADRIAN MILLER, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. No. 72-776.District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. January 18, 1973.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MILLER v. STATE, 272 So.2d 544 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1973). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MILLER v. STATE,272 So.2d 544(Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1973)
ADRIAN MILLER, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.
No. 72-776.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
January 18, 1973.
Seymour L. Honig, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
ORDER OF THE COURT
MANN, Chief Judge.
Miller asks us to review an order of the trial court denying bail pending appeal and to fix bail ourselves. His application for admission to bail was filed with the trial court. The judge, without holding any hearing, affixed a rubber stamp which reads "Motion Heard, Considered and", to which someone wrote "Denied" and the Judge signed it. This procedure plainly violates Rule 6.15(c), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., which states "When the lower court denies bail pending appeal, it shall state in its order of denial the reasons therefor. Rule 6.15 also makes specific reference to Younghans v. State, Fla. 1956,90 So.2d 308. A reading of that case will afford ample guidance for handling applications for bail pending appeal.Page 545

Instead of setting bail ourselves, which we are ill equipped to do, we quash the order under review and remand the matter to the trial court for proceedings complying with Rule 6.15, F.A.R. andYounghans.

Order quashed and application for bail remanded.

McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.