JOHN MATHIS, A. C. HARRISON AND J. C. MCDONALD, PLAINTIFFS 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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error challenging a criminal conviction for insufficient final judgment documentation. The court found that while the jury had rendered a guilty verdict and the trial court imposed sentence, the judgment entry was too cursory and informal to constitute a proper final judgment supporting appellate review.
The judgment entry was wholly insufficient as a final judgment to support a writ of error. A proper judgment must contain specific formal elements, including the defendants appearing in open court with counsel, being asked by the court whether they have anything to say before sentencing, and a complete judgment pronouncing the specific sentence and term of imprisonment.
“We have no hesitancy in saying that it is wholly insufficient as a final judgment to support a writ of error.”
Establishes the court's holding that the trial court's judgment entry failed to meet the requirements for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Mathis, A. C. Harrison, and J. C. McDonald were tried and convicted by jury verdict on charges contained in an information. The jury returned a g…
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 Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
In this cause brought here for review by writ of error, the Court finds from the court minutes in the transcript of record the following: “The said jury retired and later returned their verdict as follows: ‘We the jury find the defendants, John Mathis, A. C. Harrison and J. C. McDonald, guilty as charged in the information, so say we all. J. B. Myers, Foreman.’ ”
“Notice by defendants’ counsel of a motion for a new trial was given. On October 23rd, 1913, motion argued and sentenced to two years in State’s prison on each.”
This is the only semblance of a final judgment and sentence in the record brought here for review. We have no hesitancy in saying that it is wholly insufficient as a final judgment to support a writ of error.. A correct formula of judgment and sentence in this case would be substantially as follows: “Now on this day came in person the defendants, John Mathis, A. C. Harrison and J. C. McDonald with their counsel into open court, and each of them being separately asked by the court whether he or they had anything to say why sentence of the law should not now be pronounced upon him, say nothing. It is therefore the judgment, order and sentence of the court that you, John Mathis, A. C., Harrison and J. O. McDonald and each of you, for the crime of which you have been and stand convicted, be imprisoned in the State Penitentiary of the State of Florida for a period of two years from the date of your delivery to the officers thereof.” The court below can now at any regular term thereof impose upon the defendants a proper sentence on the verdict already found as above suggested.
The writ of error in the cause is hereby dismissed for want of a final judgment, at the cost of the plaintiff in error. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1930)…of murder in the first degree, without any recommendations whatever; it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that you, the said Enoch Davis, be taken hence to the penitentiary,” etc. The form of judgment recommended in Mathis et al. v. State, 67 Fla. 277, 64 So. R. 944, was as follows: “Now on this day came in person the defendants J. M. and A. C. H. and J. C. McD. with their counsel into open court, a.nd each of them being separately asked by the court whether he or they had anything to say why se…
-
Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1933)…80 Fla. 613, 86 Sou. Rep. 506; Timmons v. State, 97 Fla. 23, 119 Sou. Rep. 393; Tootles v. State, 98 Fla. 469, 123 Sou. Rep. 922; Maniscalco v. State, 98 Fla. 468, 123 Sou. Rep. 922; Ex-Parte McDaniel, 86 Fla. 145, 97 Sou. Rep. 317; Mathis v. State, 67 Fla. 277, 64 Sou. Rep. 944; Burns v. State, 97 Fla. 232, 120 Sou. Rep. 360; Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 Sou. Rep. 106. And such a sentence, being void, will not support a writ of error, which if issued thereon, will be quashed. Caughn v. State, 89 Fla.…
-
Shargaa v. State, 102 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1958)…and that the court “defers the passing of sentence” during good be-haviour. Formal judgment of guilt is essential to support a subsequent sentence. The Minute entry here involved fails to meet the requirements of our own decisions. Mathis v. State, 67 Fla. 277, 64 So. 944. The State in the instant case must therefore rely on the “Order of Probation” as evidence of the prior conviction. It will be recalled that the Order of Probation did contain a formal adjudication of guilt. It specifically stated “The…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence