ALBERT CROOKE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JAMES C. VAN PELT, SHERIFF OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, 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.
Albert Crooke pleaded guilty to killing a steer without inspection by a regularly appointed inspector in violation of Florida law. He challenged his conviction via habeas corpus, arguing the statute was invalid and the information failed to state an offense. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the information adequately charged an offense under the statute and habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge defective pleadings.
The information adequately states an offense under the statute, and the judgment remanding Crooke to custody was proper. Habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge merely defective pleadings; it is available only when the statute is invalid or the charge wholly fails to state any offense. The statute clearly makes it unlawful to kill livestock without inspection, subject to limited exceptions for private butchering, and the information properly alleges this offense.
“Where habeas corpus is invoked to obtain the discharge of a person held in custody to answer a charge of crime, it must be shown that the Statute under which the charge is made is invalid or that the charge as made is not merely defective in its allegations, but wholly fails to state any offense under the laws of the State.”
Establishes the standard for when habeas corpus can be used in criminal cases—only when the statute is invalid or the charge completely fails to state an offense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrooke killed a steer on October 28, 1917, in Escambia County without inspection by a regularly appointed inspector. He entered a guilty plea and was …
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 Sufficiency Of Criminal Information cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
The Plaintiff in Error entered a plea of guilty, and was duly sentenced by the Trial Court upon a count in an information duly filed against him which is in the following words:
“And your informant aforesaid, prosecuting as aforesaid, upon bis oatb aforesaid, further information makes that Albert Crooke, at and in the County of Escambia, State of Florida, aforesaid, on the twenty-eighth day of October, A. D. 1917, did then and there kill a certain steer without inspection by a regularly appointed inspector.”
Thereafter he executed and delivered to the Sheriff of the County a bond' to pay the fine and cost imposed by the Court upon him, but having failed to do so the Sheriff took him into custody for the purpose of requiring him to serve the alternative sentence of imprisonment imposed b ythe Court.
Thereupon upon petition therefor a writ of habeas corpus was taken, but upon a hearing on such writ and return thereto, in whic hthe foregoing facts were set up, a motion to quash the return was overruled and the Plaintiff in Error was by the judgment of the Court remanded to the custody of the Sheriff.
To review this judgment writ of error was allowed and taken from this Court.
The order of the Court remanding the petitioner is assigned as error, and it is urged here that the information charges no offense against the laws of the State.
The prosecution is based' upon Section one (1) of Chapter 5665, Acts of 1907, which provides: “That from and’ after the passage of this Act it shall be unlawful for auy person or persons, firm or corporation to kill for any purposes any bull, steer, cow, heifer, yearling or calf in the State of Florida without inspection by a regu larly appointed inspector except as is provided in Section 2 of this Act.”
By the exception referred to in Section Two (2) of the Statute the owner of such an animal may by himself or his 'agent butcher it “in the presence of one or more disinterested reputable persons” without being held to have violated the provisions of the Stathte.
In the case of In Re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 South. Rep. 604, this Court held that “Where hab'eas corpus-is invoked to obtain the discharge of a person held in custody to answer a charge of crime, it must be shown that the Statute under which the charge is made is invalid or that the charge as made is not merely defective in its allegations, but wholly fails to state any offense under the laws of the State. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a motion to quash or a writ of error or an appeal.” See also to the same effect Mooneyham v. Bowles, 72 Fla. 259, 72 South. Rep. 931; Butler v. Perry, 67 Fla. 405, 66 South. Rep. 150; McGriff v. State, 66 Fla. 335, 63 South. Rep. 725.
It is also well established in this jurisdiction that a charge in a criminal prosecution is not fatally defective because it does not allege defensive matter not a part of the definition of the offense charged. Butler v. Perry, supra; Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26, 34 South. Rep. 220; Beaumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71, 7 South. Rep. 371.
'The special Statute for the County of Escambia relative to this matter having been held inoperative by the judgment of the County Court of Record and that judgment upheld hei*e (State ex rel. Morgan v. Barrineau, 71 Fla. 701, 72 South. Rep. 1029) the general law is applicable.
The offense denounced is fully defined by the quoted’ section of this Statute and tested by the foregoing rules the information in this case based upon tbis Statute does not wholly fail to state an offense under the law and there was therefore no error in the judgment of the Court below remanding the Plaintiff in Error to the custody of the Sheriff.
The 'judgment is affirmed.
Browne,- C. J., and Taylor Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Ex Parte: Ernest Amos, 93 Fla. 5 (Fla. 1927)…834; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, 63 South. Rep. 705; Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125, 77 South. Rep. 666; Cason v. Quinby, 60 Fla. 35, 53 South. Rep. 741; Ex Parte David [*11] son, 76 Fla. 272, 79 South. Rep. 727; Crooke v. Van Pelt, 76 Pla. 20, 79 South. Rep. 166. In other eases the court examined, the statute under which the charge was made and finding it invalid discharged the petitioner. See Ex Parte Knight, 52 Pla. 144, 41 South. Rep. 786, 120 Am. St. Rep. 191; Harper v. Galloway, 58 Pla. 255, 51 South.…
-
Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355 (Fla. 1921)…s sufficiently charged and the judgment is within the power of the Court to render. Ex parte Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 South. Rep. 65; Ex parte Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 South. Rep. 659; In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 South. Rep. 604; Crooke v. Van-Pelt, 76 Fla. 20, 79 South. Rep. 166; Gallagher v. Mc-Gourin, 218 U. S. 442, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44; 12 R. C. L. 1186, 1192 et seq. The writ of habeas corpus may be used to test the legality of an imprisonment or a detention in custody, and may be addressed to any per…
-
Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1919)…hat ground, although the indictment may have been defectively drawn and amenable to objections that could have been presented by motions to amend or demurrer. Ex Parte Davidson, 76 Fla. 272, 79 South. Rep. 727; Crooke v. Van [*510] Pelt, 76 Fla. 20, 79 South. Rep. 166; In re Roberson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 South. Rep. 604; Ex Parte Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 South. Rep. 659; Ex Parte Bailey, 39 Fla. 734, 23 South. Rep. 552; Mooneyham v, Bowles, 72 Fla. 259, 72 South. Rep. 931; Russell v. State, 71 Fla. 236, 31 South. Rep.…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068 (Fla. 1917)
- Butler v. J. W. Perry as Sheriff, 67 Fla. 405 (Fla. 1914)
- Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71 (Fla. 1890)
- Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1903)
- Mooneyham v. Bowles, 72 Fla. 259 (Fla. 1916)
- Gus McGriff v. State, 66 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1913)
- Peninsular Grocery Co. v. Dempsey, 71 Fla. 701 (Fla. 1916)
- State v. Barrineau, 71 Fla. 701 (Fla. 1916)