JESSE R. MOWERY
v.
NATHAN MAYO, PRISON CUSTODIAN OF THA STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jesse Mowery petitioned for habeas corpus challenging his life sentence under Florida's Baumes Law (habitual offender statute) as a fourth felony offender. The Florida Supreme Court held that one of his prior convictions did not qualify as a predicate offense because it was not subsequent to the previous conviction, rendering the sentence void.
The life sentence imposed under the habitual offender statute is void because the third conviction was not for an offense subsequent to the second conviction, which is an essential requirement for prosecution as a fourth felony offender under the statute.
“The third conviction was not for an offense subsequent to the second conviction, an essential requirement to make petitioner amenable as a fourth felony offender under the law mentioned.”
Establishes the critical legal defect—that predicate felony convictions must be sequential to qualify under Florida's habitual offender statute.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMowery had been committed to Florida State Prison for life on June 12, 1946, as a fourth felony offender. His prior convictions included: a 1930 bigam…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of habeas corpus issued by direction of the Chief Justice, predicated on a letter, dated June 5, 1947, addressed to “Chief Justice of State Supreme Court, et al.,” by petitioner, No. 40,447, State penitentiary, Raiford, Florida, alleging that he is illegally detained in the State Prison, under our “Baumes Law,” Laws of Florida, 1927, Chapter No. 12022, Sec. 775.09, 775.10 and 775.11, F. S. 1941, F.S.A. Respondent by return asserted that he held petitioner by virtue of a commitment from the Criminal Court of Record, Duval County, Florida, dated June 12, 1946, which committed petitioner to the State penitentiary for life, as a fourth offender, and respondent reflected in his return a copy of the commitment and of the judgment and sentence.
On review of the record, we find the criminal career of petitioner as follows:
*186(1) Convicted July 24, 1930, of bigamy, Superior Court, Yakima County, Washington, and sentenced to serve five years in the State penitentiary, which judgment was not reversed.
(2) Sentenced November 6, 1939, in the County of San Francisco, State of California, for five years, for conviction of grand theft, in Case No. 30,599, in said court, which has not been reversed.
(3) November 6, 1939, convicted of grand theft in Criminal Action No. 30,600, in the Superior Court of San Francisco, California, and sentenced to serve five years in the State penitentiary of California, by the Adult Authority of the State of California, which has not been reversed.
(4) Convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County, Florida, March 12,1946, of the offense of bigamy, and sentenced by said court tp serve a term of five years in the Florida State Prison, which sentence has not been reversed.
The third conviction was not for an offense subsequent to the second conviction, an essential requirement to make petitioner amenable as a fourth felony offender under the law mentioned. See Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806, decided April 29, 1947. The sentence imposed is void.
Respondent is ordered to deliver petitioner to the Sheriff of Duval County and by him to be presented to the Criminal Court of Record of said County, for proper judgment and sentence.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bell, 160 Fla. 874 (Fla. 1948)…holly fail to allege a second conviction. The only question now is whether it is so defective as to charge no offense. It was error to discharge appellee and quash the information. He should have been sentenced as a second offender. Mowery v. Mayo, 159 Fla. 185, 31 So. 2nd. 249; Scott v. Mayo, 159 Fla. 816, 32 So. 2nd 821; Williams v. Mayo 160 Fla. 169, 33 So. 2nd. 861; Joyner v. State, supra; Sections 775.09, 924.34, Fla. Stat., 1941, F.S.A. The State also questions the authority of the trial court to en…
Authorities Cited
- Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806 (Fla. 1947)