EX PARTE JOSEPH VICKERY
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.
In this habeas corpus petition, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court of Record to try Vickery for manslaughter after his original murder conviction was reversed on appeal. The court clarified that a guilty verdict on a lesser included offense operates as a conclusive acquittal of the higher charge, and established that subsequent prosecution for the lesser offense is constitutionally permissible.
The Criminal Court of Record had proper jurisdiction to try Vickery for manslaughter on an information. A verdict of guilty of a lower degree constitutes a conclusive acquittal of the higher degree charged in the indictment, and the reversed conviction placed the case in the same posture as if an indictment for manslaughter had originally been brought. The continuance granted to the State did not deny Vickery a speedy trial.
“We have held that a verdict of guilty of a lower degree is an acquittal of any higher degree charged in the indictment”
Establishes the fundamental principle that a conviction for a lesser included offense operates as a conclusive acquittal of higher charges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVickery was indicted for first-degree murder in the Circuit Court for Escambia County and convicted of manslaughter. The Florida Supreme Court reverse…
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 Included Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Upon petition to a justice of this court a writ of Habeas Corpus was granted returnable before the court.
We have serious doubts whether any issues are presented on the pleadings that call for a decision from us in this form of procedure, but the chief point sought to be raised by the petitioner is so manifestly not well taken, and as it 'has been asserted that there is embarrassment of jurisdiction in the trial courts because of the point we may as well dispose of it.
The petitioner was indicted for murder in the first degree in the Circuit Court for Escambia County, was convicted thereunder of manslaughter, which conviction was reversed by this couirt (38 South. Rep. 907.) It would seem that on the receipt of the mandate, the Circuit Court transferred the case to the Criminal Court of Record of Escambia County, which has jurisdiction of all crimes in said county not capital, and thereupon an information was filed therein charging the petitioner with manslaughter. Under these facts the petitioner seeks to question the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court of Record to try the cause.
We have held that a verdict of guilty of a lower degree is an acquittal of any higher degree charged in the indictment (Johnson v. State, 27 Fla. 245, 9 South. Rep. 208) and we have repeatedly held that an indictment for murder in the first degree includes therein an indictment for manslaughter and the lower degrees of assault.
The verdict is so conclusive an. acquittal of the higher offense and wipes it out so conclusively that a plea of formal acquittal to the indictment is unnecessary and should the accused be afterwards convicted of the higher grade than upon a former conviction, this court will reverse and set aside the later conviction irrespective of the form in which it is presented to us, it being a matter in the record. Golding v. State, 31 Fla. 262, 12 South. Rep. 525.
It follows then that when the verdict of manslaughter was reversed the cause stood in the Circuit Court precisely as if the grand jury had brought in an indictment for manslaughter; and it cannot be questioned that in such event it is proper and jurisdictional for the cause to be tried in the Criminal Court, if one exists in the county, upon an information filed therein. Section 28, Art. V, Constitution. See State ex rel. Buckheitt v. Butt, 25 Fla. 258, 5 South. Rep. 597; Sims v. State, 26 Fla. 97, 7 South. Rep. 374.
The continuance granted in behalf of the State was not the denial of a speedy trial. This objection if properly raised on this writ, is. conclusively answered by the decision in Ex Parte Warris and Johnson, 28 Fla. 371, 9 South. Rep. 718.
The writ is discharged and the prisoner remanded.
Shackleford, O. J., and Whitfield, J., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1919)…ourt assumed the rule to apply that a presumption existed in favor of the court’s action, that the continuance was granted upon good cause being shown. The application for continuance was made by the State. The case was followed in Ex parte Vickery, 51 Fla. 141, 40 South. Rep. 77. The opinion does not state the facts or circumstances under which the continuance which was obtained upon motion of the State was granted, but it may be regarded as authority for the rule that in the absence of a showing that no…
-
Sanford v. State, 75 Fla. 393 (Fla. 1918)…nt: • “A conviction of a lesser offense bars a subsequent prosecution for a greater offense in all those cases where the lesser offense is included in the greater.” See also, Johnson v. State, 27 Fla. 245, 9 [*397] South. Rep. 208; Ex parte Vickery, 51 Fla. 141, 40 South. Rep. 77. The offense charged in the information is a necessary element of and constitutes an essential part of the higher offense charged in the indictment. It would be unreasonable to assume that a man could be guilty of rape and not gu…
-
Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1937)…or Okaloosa County. Another trial for manslaughter on the indictment was properly'had in the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County, there being no Criminal Court of Record in Okaloosa County. See Secs. 25, 28, Art. V, Constitution. In Ex Parte Vickery, 51 Fla. 141, 40 So. 77, there was no change of venue from Escambia County in which county the indictment was found for a first degree murder charged to have been committed in that county, and there was a Criminal Court of Record in Escambia County having jurisd…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 27 Fla. 245 (Fla. 1891)
- Ex parte Warris, 28 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1891)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. J. J. Buckheitt v. Butt, 25 Fla. 258 (Fla. 1889)
- Golding v. State, 31 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1893)
- Sims v. State, 26 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1890)