LEE B. CARRAWAY, 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.
Lee Carraway sought review of a circuit court decision denying him a jury trial on whether he violated the conditions of his conditional pardon for assault with intent to commit manslaughter. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a jury trial is required only when identity is disputed; when identity is not contested, the court may determine pardon violation facts without a jury.
The court held that Carraway was not entitled to a jury trial. Under the rule established in Alvarez v. State, a jury is required only if the defendant denies he is the same person who was convicted and pardoned. Since Carraway's identity was not at issue, the circuit judge properly could determine the pardon violation facts without a jury, unless the judge chose to submit the matter to a jury in his discretion.
“When brought before the court upon such rule,- if the prisoner denies that he is the same person who was convicted, sentenced and pardoned, he is entitled to have a jnry summarily empanelled to try such issue, but if his identity is not denied all the other facts and issues can be heard and tried by the judge alone, unless the judge, solely within his discretion, shall see proper, for his own satisfaction, to submit the facts to a jury for determination.”
Establishes the governing rule from Alvarez v. State regarding when jury trial is required in pardon violation proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarraway had been convicted and sentenced to three years in the penitentiary for assault with intent to commit manslaughter. He received a conditional…
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 Conditional Pardon cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
The plaintiff in error brings here for review by writ of error the judgment of the circuit court of Suwannee county in a proceeding by rule in which the plaintiff in error was called upon to show cause, if any he could, why a former sentence of the circuit court consigning him to imprisonment in the penitentiary for three years upon his conviction of assault with intent to commit manslaughter, should not be enforced, because of his alleged breach of the conditions of a conditional pardon from such sentence. The only question presented or argued here is that the court below erred in denying the demand of the plaintiff in error for a trial by jury of the question presented by said rule as to whether or not he had violated the conditions of his pardon from said sentence. This question has been settled here in the case of Alvarez v. State, 50 Florida 24, 39 South. Rep. 481, 111 Am. St. Rep. 102, 7. A. & E. Anno. Cas. 88, as follows: “When brought before the court upon such rule,- if the prisoner denies that he is the same person who was convicted, sentenced and pardoned, he is entitled to have a jnry summarily empanelled to try such issue, but if his identity is not denied all the other facts and issues can be heard and tried by the judge alone, unless the judge, solely within his discretion, shall see proper, for his own satisfaction, to submit the facts to a jury for determination.” This rule was reiterated in the case of State v. Horne, 52 Fla. 125, 42 South. Rep. 388; 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 719. There was no issue in the case as to the identity of the plaintiff in error, and the circuit judge committed no error in denying the demand for a jury trial.
The judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed at the cost of the plaintiff in error. All concur, except Hocker, J., absent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morgan v. Louie L. Wainwright, 676 F.2d 476 (11th Cir. 1982)…to try such issue; but if his identity is not denied, all the other facts and issues can be heard by the judge alone, unless the judge, solely in his discretion, shall see proper to submit the facts to a jury for determination.’ ” Carraway v. State, 58 Fla. 15, 51 So. 142 (1909) (emphasis added). See State v. Horne, 52 Fla. 125, 42 So. 388, 393 (1906); Ex parte Alvarez, 50 Fla. 24, 39 So. 481, 484 (1905). These cases have not been cited since for the proposition that some “probationers” (i.e., those who d…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Horne, 52 Fla. 125 (Fla. 1906)
- Ex parte Alvarez v. State, 50 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1905)