WILLIAM CRAFT, 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.
William Craft appealed his conviction for perjury and twenty-year hard labor sentence from Baker County Circuit Court. The Florida Supreme Court granted his motion to be released from the state prison back to the sheriff's custody pending disposition of his writ of error, holding that the writ operated as a supersedeas once the Circuit Court ordered him relieved of costs.
The writ of error operates as a supersedeas to the execution of the judgment when the defendant remains in the custody of the sheriff of the sentencing court, as established in State v. Mitchell. Craft must be returned to the Baker County sheriff's custody pending disposition of the writ of error.
“Under the order made by the Circuit Court, the writ of error operates as a supersedeas to the execution of the judgment upon plaintiff in error remaining in the custody of the sheriff of the court passing the sentence.”
Establishes the core holding that a writ of error functions as a stay of execution when the defendant remains in sheriff's custody.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 1900, Craft was convicted of perjury in Baker County Circuit Court and sentenced to twenty years of hard labor in the state prison. The Circu…
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 Execution Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam :
In April of the present year, plaintiff in error was convicted of perjury in the Circuit Court of Baker county, and sentenced to confinement at hard labor in the State prison for the term of twenty years. From this sentence, he sued out this, writ of error. Upon proof presented to the Circuit Court as provided by section 2977 Revised Statutes, that court made an order that plaintiff in error be relieved from the payment of all costs in the cause. The judgment does not impose a money fine, but simply imprisonment in the State prison.
It is made to appear to: us that, notwithstanding the order made by the Circuit Judge and the writ of error sued out, plaintiff in error is now undergoing execution of the sentence in the State prison, and that be: is now .employed at hard labor by one of the lessees of State convicts. We are moved to grant an order directing’ that he be redelivered to the sheriff of Baker county, to remain in his custody until the present writ of error is disposed of. The Attorney-Gen eral 'consents that we hear the motion at this time .
The motion must be granted. Under the order made by the Circuit Court, the writ of error operates as a supersedeas to the execution of the, judgment upon plaintiff in error remaining in the custody of the sheriff of the court passing the sentence. State v. Mitchell, 29 Fla. 302, 10 South. Rep. 746. We shall, therefore, enter an order requiring the Commissioner of Agriculture, and the contractor for State convicts having plaintiff in error in custody, to deliver plaintiff in error to the custody of thie sheriff of Baker county, to be by him held in custody during the pendency of this writ of error, or until released as provided by law.