STATE EX REL. A. MCLEOD, PLAINTIFF IN, ERROR,
v.
JOHN LOGAN, SHERIFF OF POLK 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the writ cannot be used to avoid a criminal charge when the petitioner is not currently deprived of liberty but is instead under an appearance bond. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for a writ of error or appeal.
No, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used in place of a writ of error or appeal, nor can it be utilized when the petitioner is not deprived of liberty but is under an appearance bond.
“The writ 'of Habeas Corpus is a writ the function of which is to cause the body of a person who is, [*349] oi* claims to be, unlawfully deprived of his liberty to be brought before the court that it may inquire into the cause of his detention and if found to be illegal that he may be restored to liberty.”
Defines the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error applied for a writ of habeas corpus. At the time of the application and at the time of the court's decision, the plaintiff in e…
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 Writ Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, J.
The writ 'of Habeas Corpus is a writ the function of which is to cause the body of a person who is, oi* claims to be, unlawfully deprived of his liberty to be brought before the court that it may inquire into the cause of his detention and if found to be illegal that he may be restored to liberty.
The plaintiff in error in this case was not at the time he applied for the writ deprived of his liberty, nor is he now deprived of his liberty, but is under an appearance bond to answer a criminal charge duly lodged against him.
Habeas Corpus is not a proceeding which can be utilized in place of a writ of error or an appeal; nor does it perform the functions of either. The order of the Court denying the petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Browne, J’., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1975)…procedure is not a substitute for an appeal. This has long been the law. See, e. g., Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1967); Sneed v. Mayo, 66 So. 2d 865 (Fla.1953); Futch v. Johnson, 101 Fla. 328, 134 So. 791 (1931); State v. Logan, 87 Fla. 348, 100 So. 173 (1924); Dowling v. Lee, 68 Fla. 23, 66 So. 142 (1914); Ex Parte Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 So. 65 (1889). In the instant case we will consider the petition for writ of habeas corpus solely because there is now a new issue, specifically the…
-
Sneed v. Mayo, 66 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1953)…unlawfully imprisoned against their will. It is designed to test solely the legality of the petitioner’s imprisonment, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Ex parte Amos, 93 Fla. 5, 112 So. 289; State ex rel. McLeod v. Logan, 87 Fla. 348, 100 So. 173; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, 63 So. 706; Collingsworth v. Mayo, Fla., [*870] 37 So. 2d 696. The purpose o-f the writ being to bring the petitioner before a competent judicial tribunal in order that inquiry may be made into the legality of his d…
-
Jones v. Cook, 146 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1941)…motion to quash, a writ of error, writ of coram nobis, or certiorari. Moneyham v. Bowles, 72 Fla. 259, 72 So. 931; State v. Dillon, 75 Fla. 785, 79 So. 29; In Re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 So. 604, L. R. A. 1918B, 1148; State v. Logan, 87 Fla. 348, 100 So. 173; Carroll v. Merritt, 91 Fla. 893, 109 So. 630; Roberts v. State, 95 Fla. 182, 116 So. 228; Crooke v. Van Pelt, 76 Fla. 20, 79 So. 166; Futch v. State, 101 Fla. 328, 134 So. 791; Lehman v. Sawyer (Fla.), 143 So. 310. It would delay and disturb the o…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence