THOMAS WOODSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Thomas Woodson, convicted of a felony and sentenced to six months imprisonment, obtained a writ of error to appeal his conviction but escaped from jail while the appeal was pending. The Florida Supreme Court held that it would dismiss the writ of error because an escaped prisoner cannot be heard on appeal, as any judgment rendered would be unenforceable and the court loses jurisdiction over the defendant.
The court held that it will refuse to hear a criminal case on writ of error when the plaintiff in error has escaped and is not within the control of the court below, either actually in custody or constructively on bail. The writ of error would be dismissed unless Woodson surrendered himself to the sheriff or other proper officer by the third Monday of January next.
“When a person charged with felony has escaped out of custody no order or judgment, if any should be made, can be enforced against him, and courts will not give their time to proceedings which, for their effectiveness, must depend upon the consent of the person charged with crime.”
Establishes the foundational principle that courts will not hear appeals from escaped prisoners because judgments cannot be enforced against them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoodson was indicted, tried, and convicted of a felony at the Franklin County Circuit Court in May 1882 and sentenced to six months in the penitentiar…
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 Escape From Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice VanValkenburgh
delivered the opinion of the court:
Thomas Woodson was indicted, tried and convicted of a felony at the Spring Term of the Circuit Court held in and for Eranklin county in May, A. D.
1882. Eor the offence he was sentenced to six months imprisonment in the penitentiary. Afterwards he applied for and obtained a writ of error to this court, assigning certain errors as appearing in the indictment as well as upon the trial of the cause. While the cause was thus pending in this court he broke jail and absconded. The sheriff of Eranklin county certifies to this court that he broke jail on the night of the seventh of June, 1882, and that he has no knowledge or information of his whereabouts ; that he came .from Columbus, Georgia. The Attorney-General now moves that an order be made directing that the writ of error be dismissed on the third Monday of January next, unless the said Woodson shall, in the meantime, surrender himself to the custody of the sheriff of Eranklin county or of the court.
The rule is well settled that an appellate court will refuse to hear a criminal case on a writ of error when the plaintiff in error has escaped and is not within the control of the court below, either actually, by being in custody, or constructively, by being out on bail. In the case of The People vs. Genet, 59 N. Y., the court in discussing this question use this language: “When a person charged with felony has escaped out of custody no order or judgment, if any should be made, can be enforced against him, and courts will not give their time to proceedings which, for their effectiveness, must depend upon the consent of the person charged with crime.” * * * “ All the cases which consider the question seem to concur in the view that an escaped prisoner cannot take any action before the court.” In Commonwealth vs. Andrews, 97 Mass., 543, Bigelow, C. J., speaking for the court, says: “ The defendant, by escaping from jail, where he was held for the purpose of prosecuting these exceptions, and abiding the judgment of the court thereon, has voluntarily withdrawn himself from the jurisdiction of the court. He is not present in pei’son, nor can he be heard by attorney. A heazing would avail nothing. If a new trial should be ordered, he is not here to answer further ; if the exceptions are overruled, a sentence cannot be pz’onounced and executed upon him.” The Supreme Court of the United States in Smith vs. United States, 94 U.
S. R., 97, adopted the same rule holding that the court will refuse to hear a criminal case unless the convicted party suing out the writ of error is where he can be made to respond to azzy judgment which may be rendered. See, also, Sherman vs. The Commonwealth, 14 Grattan, 677; Leftwich vs. The Commonwealth, 20 Grattan, 716; Anonymous, 31 Me., 592; see, also, The People vs. Redinger, 55 Cal., 290, where the authorities are all cited and the question fully discussed.
[The writ of error was dismissed at the January Term, 1883, it not having been made to appear that the plaintiff in error was in the custody of the law as above ordered. — Reporter.] . The motion of the Attorney-General is granted, and an order will be entered that the writ of error be dismissed on the third Monday of January next unless it shall be made to appear to this court, on or before that day, that the said plaintiff in error is in custody of the sheriff of Franklin county or other proper officer of the law.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
State v. Gurican, 576 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1991)…, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138, 17 S.Ct. 525, 41 L.Ed. 949 (1897); Bretti v. Wainwright, 225 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1969), approved in part, expunged in part, 255 So. 2d 266 (Fla.1971); Woodson v. State, 19 Fla. 549 (1882). These decisions are based on the theory that such a defendant abandoned or waived the right to an appeal. As the Court stated in Molinaro: No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case…
-
Morris v. Rabara, 145 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…xecuted for the reason that the defendant cannot be found in Palm Beach County. This motion, with the supporting documents, is sufficient to establish in the record in this cause proof of the grounds stated in the motion. In Woodson v. State, 1882, 19 Fla. 549, the court was considering a motion of the State to dismiss appellant’s appeal upon the [*267] ground that while the appeal was pending the appellant broke jail and absconded. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed unless it was made to appe…
-
Electa E. Palmer v. Palmer, 28 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1891)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1876)