Dukes v. State

3 So. 2d 754, 148 Fla. 109, 1941 Fla. LEXIS 845
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 5, 1941
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 3 So. 2d 754 (Dukes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dukes v. State, 3 So. 2d 754, 148 Fla. 109, 1941 Fla. LEXIS 845 (Fla. 1941).

Opinion

*110 Terrell, J.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in Walton County for withholding the means of support from his minor child. Sentence was withheld until the next regular term of court on condition that he contribute two dollars per week to the support of his child. Failing to appear at the next term of court, his appearance bond was estreated and he was taken into custody by the sheriff.

He moved to vacate the verdict and dismiss the prosecution on the ground that he was not a citizen of this State. His motion was denied and he was sentenced to serve one year at hard labor in the state penitentiary. This appeal is from the judgment so imposed.

Section 5496, Revised General Statutes of 1920, Section 7654, Compiled General Laws of 1927, makes it a felony for a man “in this State” to withhold from •his wife or children the means of support. Appellant supports motion with an affidavit to the effect that he was never a citizen of this State but he does not say that he was not in the State at the time or that his child was not here. The punishment imposed does not depend on citizenship.

, Appellant did not testify at the trial to any of the allegations set up in his motion. Motions are not self supporting and will not be permitted to set aside a verdict and judgment secured in due course and no showing of fraud or double dealing is revealed.

The only other assault on the trial is directed to the validity of the order prescribing the conditions of the bond for support of the child but that question appears to have been raised for the first time in this court and will not be considered.

Affirmed.

*111 Whitfield, Acting C. J., Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concurring. Brown, C. J., absent, not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mathis v. State
682 So. 2d 175 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Steinhorst v. State
412 So. 2d 332 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)
Stephan v. State
251 So. 2d 30 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
State v. Darnell
230 So. 2d 151 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1970)
State v. Darnell
217 So. 2d 127 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Willoughby v. State
203 So. 2d 10 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Lee v. State
165 So. 2d 443 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
State v. Brown
118 So. 2d 574 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
Everett v. State
97 So. 2d 241 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 So. 2d 754, 148 Fla. 109, 1941 Fla. LEXIS 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dukes-v-state-fla-1941.