Schmunk v. State ex rel. Sandstrom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schmunk v. State ex rel. Sandstrom

353 So. 2d 907, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16987

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1977

DocketNo. 76-2415

StatusPublished

This text of 353 So. 2d 907 (Schmunk v. State ex rel. Sandstrom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmunk v. State ex rel. Sandstrom, 353 So. 2d 907, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16987 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The points on appeal can be consolidated into a single argument that the trial court erred in considering a petition for habeas corpus and in issuing the writ. We agree.

Appellee in this case was fined for careless driving. At no time was he detained by the trial judge or any other governmental authority. For this reason, review by habeas corpus was improper because neither the pre, nor post, judgment proceedings, or directions, detained the appellee. Pennekamp v. Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit In and For Dade County, 155 Fla. 589, 21 So.2d 41 (1945). Moreover, where a person is not in custody, the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Sandstrom v. Kolski, 305 So.2d 75 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974). Accordingly, the final order and judgment in habeas corpus is reversed and this cause remanded to the trial court for proper proceeding.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., and STEPHEN LEE DAKAN, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The points on appeal can be consolidated into a single argument that the trial court erred in considering a petition for habeas corpus and in issuing the writ. We agree.

Appellee in this case was fined for careless driving. At no time was he detained by the trial judge or any other governmental authority. For this reason, review by habeas corpus was improper because neither the pre, nor post, judgment proceedings, or directions, detained the appellee. Pennekamp v. Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit In and For Dade County, 155 Fla. 589, 21 So.2d 41 (1945). Moreover, where a person is not in custody, the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Sandstrom v. Kolski, 305 So.2d 75 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974). Accordingly, the final order and judgment in habeas corpus is reversed and this cause remanded to the trial court for proper proceeding.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., and STEPHEN LEE DAKAN, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 So. 2d 907, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmunk-v-state-ex-rel-sandstrom-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack