State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Mayo

Supreme Court of Florida

State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Mayo

167 So. 34, 123 Fla. 491

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 167 So. 34 (State Ex Rel. Hamilton 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

State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Mayo, 167 So. 34, 123 Fla. 491 (Fla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Davis, J.

This is an application for habeas corpus addressed to this Court by a prisoner incarcerated in the State Prison. Attached to the petition for the writ are copies of *492 the court proceedings under which petitioner was committed to serve a sentence of two years for the offense of feloniously receiving stolen property of the value of more than fifty dollars. Since petitioner is proceeding without the aid of counsel, we will dispose of the merits of the case absent the formal issuance and return of a writ of habeas corpus, the rule being well Settled that where an application for writ of habeas corpus is made to this Court and the petition shows on its face that the alleged detention complained of is in conformity to a valid conviction and sentence, the writ itself may be denied on the face of the showing made, since no useful purpose would be served by the issuance of a habeas corpus that would merely result in a remand of the prisoner to custody under the circumstances relied on for relief by such process. Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94, 48 Sou. Rep. 632; State, ex rel. Davis, v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 Sou. Rep. 97; Shipper v. Schumacker, 118 Fla. 867, 160 Sou. Rep. 357.

The record shows' that the petitioner was informed against in the Court of Record of Escambia County, tried by a jury on a charge of felony, found guilty by the jury’s verdict and thereafter adjudged to be guilty and thereupon sentenced to a term of imprisonment that is within the limitations prescribed by law. Section 7239 C. G. L., 5138 R. G. S.

The contention that the Court of Record of Escambia County has no constitutional existence is obviously without merit. See Sections 39, 40 and 41, Article V, Constitution of Florida, as amended at the 1910 General Election. The Criminal Court of Record of Es'cambia County which now is possessed of all the powers of the original Criminal Court of Record as well as the additional powers provided for in the amendment to the Constitution hereinbefore referred to.

*493 It affirmatively appears from the petition that the prisoner is being lawfully held and imprisoned in the State Prison under a lawful judgment of conviction and sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction, therefore the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the authority of the case hereinbefore cited.

Habeas corpus application denied.

Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

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

Davis, J.

This is an application for habeas corpus addressed to this Court by a prisoner incarcerated in the State Prison. Attached to the petition for the writ are copies of *492 the court proceedings under which petitioner was committed to serve a sentence of two years for the offense of feloniously receiving stolen property of the value of more than fifty dollars. Since petitioner is proceeding without the aid of counsel, we will dispose of the merits of the case absent the formal issuance and return of a writ of habeas corpus, the rule being well Settled that where an application for writ of habeas corpus is made to this Court and the petition shows on its face that the alleged detention complained of is in conformity to a valid conviction and sentence, the writ itself may be denied on the face of the showing made, since no useful purpose would be served by the issuance of a habeas corpus that would merely result in a remand of the prisoner to custody under the circumstances relied on for relief by such process. Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94, 48 Sou. Rep. 632; State, ex rel. Davis, v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 Sou. Rep. 97; Shipper v. Schumacker, 118 Fla. 867, 160 Sou. Rep. 357.

The record shows' that the petitioner was informed against in the Court of Record of Escambia County, tried by a jury on a charge of felony, found guilty by the jury’s verdict and thereafter adjudged to be guilty and thereupon sentenced to a term of imprisonment that is within the limitations prescribed by law. Section 7239 C. G. L., 5138 R. G. S.

The contention that the Court of Record of Escambia County has no constitutional existence is obviously without merit. See Sections 39, 40 and 41, Article V, Constitution of Florida, as amended at the 1910 General Election. The Criminal Court of Record of Es'cambia County which now is possessed of all the powers of the original Criminal Court of Record as well as the additional powers provided for in the amendment to the Constitution hereinbefore referred to.

*493 It affirmatively appears from the petition that the prisoner is being lawfully held and imprisoned in the State Prison under a lawful judgment of conviction and sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction, therefore the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the authority of the case hereinbefore cited.

Habeas corpus application denied.

Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 So. 34, 123 Fla. 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hamilton-v-mayo-fla-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack