Dixon v. Mayo
64 So. 2d 176, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1175
Opinion
This cause came on to be heard upon the original writ of habeas corpus and the respondent’s return. It now appears to the court that the petitioner was not entitled to the writ because his period of incarceration had not expired due to the provisions of the sentence that thirty days be added to the original period in the event he did not pay the costs, and his failure to pay the same.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dixon v. Mayo, 64 So. 2d 176, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1175 (Fla. 1953).
64 So. 2d 176 (Dixon v. Mayo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Schreck v. State
240 So. 2d 873 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Gary v. State
239 So. 2d 523 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Adjmi v. State
139 So. 2d 179 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)