Hollingshead v. Mayo
This text of 79 So. 2d 774 (Hollingshead v. Mayo) 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.
Opinion
This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which the petitioner attempts to question the validity of a two-year sentence imposed on him on December 4, 1953. In the return of the respondent to the writ issued in the cause it is shown that the petitioner is •being held in custody not only by virtue of the sentence imposed on December 4, 1953, which he attacks as invalid, but also under a three-year sentence imposed on July 13, 1954, of which he does not complain.
[775]*775It is so well settled as to require no citation of authority that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a vehicle of appeal. Its function is to test the reasons or grounds for present restraint and detention.
The petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to be discharged from custody under the 3-year sentence imposed on July 13, 1954, and, consequently, the writ should be quashed and the petitioner should be remanded to custody. Allison v. Baker, 152 Fla. 274, 11 So.2d 578; Ex parte Puckett, 159 Fla. 468, 31 So.2d 868; Clemens v. Mayo, 159 Fla. 473, 31 So.2d 869.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
79 So. 2d 774, 1955 Fla. LEXIS 3472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollingshead-v-mayo-fla-1955.