Roberts v. Schumacher

Supreme Court of Florida

Roberts v. Schumacher

173 So. 827, 127 Fla. 461, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1469

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 173 So. 827 (Roberts v. Schumacher) 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

Roberts v. Schumacher, 173 So. 827, 127 Fla. 461, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1469 (Fla. 1937).

Pincite

Opinions

Brown, J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted for an alleged violation of Section 7263 C. G. L. Instead of moving to quash the indictment, plaintiff in error attacked the sufficiency or legality of the indictment by suing out writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court, and upon hearing of *462 the writ the Circuit Judge remanded the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff. There is no question raised here as to the jurisdiction of the court over the person or the subject matter.

Whether the indictment could have been successfully attacked by motion to quash or demurrer is a question not before us on this writ of error and upon which we make no intimation one way or the other. Habeas corpus is not a remedy for relief against indictments charging criminal offenses defectively or inartificially. But in order to have justified his release by the court below on habeas corpus, it was incumbent upon petitioner to show, either that the statute under which he was indicted was invalid, or that the indictment found against him wholly failed to charge any offense against the laws of this State. This the petitioner failed to do, and the order of the Circuit Judge was free from error. See Ex Parte Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 So. 659; Ex parte Bowan, 25 Fla. 214, 6 So. 65; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, 63 So. 706; Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377, 47 So. 835; Butler v. Perry, 67 Fla. 405, 66 So. 150; Mooneyham v. Bowles, 72 Fla. 259, 72 So. 931; In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 So. 604; Groswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505, 82 So. 44; Spooner v. Curtis, 85 Fla. 408, 96 So. 836; Ex parte Coy, 127 U. S. 731, 32 L. Ed. 274; In re Lewis, 114 F. 963; Bass v. Doolittle, 93 Fla. 993, 112 So. 892; Reffkin v. Boyce, 104 Fla. 221, 139 So. 578; Hepburn v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 133, 149 So. 196; State v. Drumright, 116 Fla. 496, 156 So. 571, 97 A. L. R. 154.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Davis, J., dissents.

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

Brown, J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted for an alleged violation of Section 7263 C. G. L. Instead of moving to quash the indictment, plaintiff in error attacked the sufficiency or legality of the indictment by suing out writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court, and upon hearing of *462 the writ the Circuit Judge remanded the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff. There is no question raised here as to the jurisdiction of the court over the person or the subject matter.

Whether the indictment could have been successfully attacked by motion to quash or demurrer is a question not before us on this writ of error and upon which we make no intimation one way or the other. Habeas corpus is not a remedy for relief against indictments charging criminal offenses defectively or inartificially. But in order to have justified his release by the court below on habeas corpus, it was incumbent upon petitioner to show, either that the statute under which he was indicted was invalid, or that the indictment found against him wholly failed to charge any offense against the laws of this State. This the petitioner failed to do, and the order of the Circuit Judge was free from error. See Ex Parte Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 So. 659; Ex parte Bowan, 25 Fla. 214, 6 So. 65; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, 63 So. 706; Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377, 47 So. 835; Butler v. Perry, 67 Fla. 405, 66 So. 150; Mooneyham v. Bowles, 72 Fla. 259, 72 So. 931; In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 So. 604; Groswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505, 82 So. 44; Spooner v. Curtis, 85 Fla. 408, 96 So. 836; Ex parte Coy, 127 U. S. 731, 32 L. Ed. 274; In re Lewis, 114 F. 963; Bass v. Doolittle, 93 Fla. 993, 112 So. 892; Reffkin v. Boyce, 104 Fla. 221, 139 So. 578; Hepburn v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 133, 149 So. 196; State v. Drumright, 116 Fla. 496, 156 So. 571, 97 A. L. R. 154.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Davis, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 So. 827, 127 Fla. 461, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-schumacher-fla-1937.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack