ALFRED MCDONALD AND ANCHOR DAMGUARD, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
E. L. SMITH, SHERIFF, DEFENDANT IN ERROR; HARRY SARGENT AND C. J. THORPE, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, V. E. L. SMITH, SHERIFF, 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 held that sentences imposed by the Criminal Court of Record requiring defendants to serve hard labor on county roads were void because Florida law did not authorize such sentences for misdemeanors. The court reversed the judgments and remanded for imposition of valid sentences.
Sentences requiring hard labor on county roads are void because Florida law does not authorize such sentences for misdemeanors. A sentence wholly unauthorized by law may be collaterally assailed in habeas corpus proceedings and is a nullity regardless of appellate affirmance.
“A sentence of a court that is wholly unauthorized by law may be a nullity and as such may be collaterally assailed in habeas corpus proceedings.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that void sentences can be challenged through habeas corpus regardless of prior appellate affirmance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs in error Alfred McDonald, Anchor Damguard, Harry Sargent, and C. J. Thorpe were convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Volusia Count…
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 Unauthorized Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The plaintiffs in error in each of the above styled causes were upon convictions in the Criminal Court of Record for Volusia County for misdemeanors severally sentenced to “serve at hard labor on the county roads of Volusia County for a period of seventy-five days.” The sentences were affirmed on writs of error by the Circuit Court. On writs of habeas corpus to 1 est the validity of the sentences the petitioners were remanded and were allowed writs of error to this court under the statute. The statute, Chapter 6312, Acts of 1911, under which the alleged offenses of illegal fishing were committed, being a special or local law does not prescribe the sentence to be imposed, but Chapter 6222, Acts of 1911, provides that “the punishment for commission of crimes other than felo • nies in this State, when not otherwise provided by Statute, or when the penalty provided by such statute is ineffectual because of constitutional provisions, or because the same is otherwise illegal or void, shall be a fine not éxeeeding two hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding ninety days, or both, at the discretion of the court.” The imprisonment authorized to be imposed by sentence is to the county jail, the disposition of such prisoners during the term of imprisonment being determined bv statute. A sentence of a court that is wholly unauthorized by law may be a nullity and as such may be collaterally assailed in habeas corpus proceedings. There being no express or implied authority in the Criminal Court of Eecord to impose and enforce a sentence to “serve at hard labor on the county roads,” such a sentence is void. The sentence of the Criminal Court of Eecord being void, the affirmance of it by the Circuit Court gave it no validity.
The judgments remanding the petitioners to the custody of the Sheriff under the sentence of the Criminal Court of Eecord are reversed, and the causes are remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to make appropriate orders to secure the attendance of the petitioners for proper sentences in the Criminal Court of Eecord for Yolusia County.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor and Hocker, J. J. concur. Cockrell, J., absent by reason of illness in his family.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1927)…Rep. 759; Ex parte Simmons, 73 Fla. 998, 75 South. Rep. 542; Douglas v. Shackelford, 73 Fla. 889, 75 South. Rep. 203; Johnson v. State, 81 Fla. 783, 89 South Rep. 114; State ex rel. Johnson v. Quigg, 83 Fla. 1, 90 South. Rep. 695; McDonald v. Smith, 68 Fla. 77, 66 South. Rep. 430; Porter v. State, 62 Fla. 79, 56 South. Rep. 406; Blackwelder v. Morris, 89 Fla. 87, 103 South. Rep. 124. The sentence should have been death by hanging as provided by the statutes as of October, 1923, when the crime was committ…
-
Faison v. Vestal, 71 Fla. 562 (Fla. 1916)…e sentence imposed be illegal, the petitioner is not thereby entitled to a discharge, bitt may be remanded for a proper sentence, he having his right to give bail as the law provides pending the imposition of a legal sentence. See McDonald v. Smith, 68 Fla. 77, 66 South. Rep. 430; Porter v. State, 62 Fla. 79, 56 South. Rep. 406. It does not appear that the ordinance as construed by the Circuit Judge is wholly void under the statute conferring powers upon the City of Plant City. A second offense is one off…
-
Blackwelder v. Morris, 89 Fla. 87 (Fla. 1925)…endant seeks a discharge from custody in habeas corpus proceedings, he may be remanded for a legal and proper sentence. See Ex Parte Simmons, 73 Fla. 998, 75 South. Rep. 542; Douglas v. Shackelford, 73 Fla. 889, 75 South. Rep. 203; Sargent v. Smith, 68 Fla. 77, 66 South. Rep. 430; Faison v. Vestal, 71 Fla. 562, 71 South. Rep. 759; Johnson v. State, 81 Fla. 783, 89 South. Rep. 114; Porter v. State, 62 Fla. 79, 56 South. Rep. 406; State ex rel. Johnson v. Quigg, 83 Fla. 1, 90 South. Rep. 695. As the statut…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence