Moat v. Mayo

Supreme Court of Florida

Moat v. Mayo

82 So. 2d 591

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedSeptember 28, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 82 So. 2d 591 (Moat 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.

Bluebook

Moat v. Mayo, 82 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

DREW, Chief Justice.

Petitioner applied for writ of habeas corpus on grounds that the judgment and two year sentence imposed upon him was void because imposed under Section 843.11, F.S.1951, F.S.A., whereas the information was drawn under Section 843.12, F.S.1951, F.S.A. The writ was issued.

Respondent has .filed a return asserting that the matters raised in this petition have been heretofore judicially determined by this Court on February 1, 1955, in a previous proceedings in habeas corpus.. In support thereof there.is attached to the return certified copies of notice for writ of habeas corpus and the order of denial entered by this Court. We are required to accept these allegations in the return as true “until impeached, and evidence is not needed to support an uncontroverted return.” Sullivan v. State, Fla. 1951; 49 So.2d 794, 797; Cooper v. Sinclair, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 702, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 867; 74 S.Ct. 107, 98 L.Ed. 377.

The rule in this State is that denial of application for habeas corpus precludes a subsequent application for habeas corpus in' the same' cause on the same facts and issues. Section 79.10, F.S.1951, F.S.A.; Pope v. Mayo, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 286; D’Alessandro v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231. We have re-examined the -prior proceedings in habeas corpus and find that the same issues were there raised- and decided adversely to petitioner; Therefore,the petitioner is remanded.

H -W O .W p a p.. FJ O W M co J c 1 o h-1 a W r T: W 1-1 E-i < ¡3

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

DREW, Chief Justice.

Petitioner applied for writ of habeas corpus on grounds that the judgment and two year sentence imposed upon him was void because imposed under Section 843.11, F.S.1951, F.S.A., whereas the information was drawn under Section 843.12, F.S.1951, F.S.A. The writ was issued.

Respondent has .filed a return asserting that the matters raised in this petition have been heretofore judicially determined by this Court on February 1, 1955, in a previous proceedings in habeas corpus.. In support thereof there.is attached to the return certified copies of notice for writ of habeas corpus and the order of denial entered by this Court. We are required to accept these allegations in the return as true “until impeached, and evidence is not needed to support an uncontroverted return.” Sullivan v. State, Fla. 1951; 49 So.2d 794, 797; Cooper v. Sinclair, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 702, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 867; 74 S.Ct. 107, 98 L.Ed. 377.

The rule in this State is that denial of application for habeas corpus precludes a subsequent application for habeas corpus in' the same' cause on the same facts and issues. Section 79.10, F.S.1951, F.S.A.; Pope v. Mayo, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 286; D’Alessandro v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231. We have re-examined the -prior proceedings in habeas corpus and find that the same issues were there raised- and decided adversely to petitioner; Therefore,the petitioner is remanded.

H -W O .W p a p.. FJ O W M co J c 1 o h-1 a W r T: W 1-1 E-i < ¡3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 2d 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moat-v-mayo-fla-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack