EX PARTE BRANDAMOUR

Fla. | 1926-05-07
Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur., Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
91 Fla. 889 Florida Supreme Court (1926) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Brandamour challenges his conviction for illegal fishing using a haul seine in Martin County waters via habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court grants the petition, finding the information fatally defective and the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum.


Holding

The information is fatally defective because it alleges the illegal act occurred "in the inside waters" rather than "in any of the inside salt waters in" the specified counties as required by the statute. Additionally, the sentence of three months imprisonment exceeds the statutory maximum of ninety days provided in Section 5005, Revised General Statutes of 1920.


Key Quotes

“The information being fatally defective and the sentence in excess of that fixed by the statute, the petitioner is discharged.”

The court's holding that both the defective information and excessive sentence warrant relief

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Brandamour was convicted in Martin County Court on an information charging unlawful fishing using a haul seine in inside waters. He was sentenced to t…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Whitfield, P. J.

Whitfield, P. J.

— In habeas corpus proceedings, it appears that H. F. Brandamour was convicted in the County Court of Martin County on an information charging that he “unlawfully, did then and there, fish or cause to be fished a haul seine or drag net in the inside waters of Palm Beach (now Martin) County, Florida.” The sentence was to three months imprisonment in the county jail “on failure to pay a fine of $250.00 and costs of court. ’ ’

The statute provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation to fish, or cause to be fished, any haul seine or drag net in any of the inside salt waters in the County of Brevard, St. Lucie, Palm Beach, Broward, and all inside salt waters in Dade County north of Biscayne Bay.” Chapter 8589, Acts of 1921. Punish ment for violating such Chapter, it being a local law, is provided for in Section 5005, Revised General Statutes of 1920, which is as follows:

“The punishment for commission of crimes other than felonies in this State, when not others wise 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 exceeding-two hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding ninety days, or both, at the discretion of the court..”

Snowden v. Brown, 60 Fla. 212, 53 South. Rep. 548; Stimson v. State, 63 Fla. 42, 58 South. Rep. 722.

The title to Chapter 8589, Acts of 1921, apparently does not violate Section 16, Article III, Constitution. By Chapter 10180, Acts of 1925, the County of Martin was created out of portions of Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties.

The provisions of Chapter 8589, Acts of 1921, have reference to the territory then-embraced in the counties named therein and the subsequent formation of the-new County of Martin from portions of the territory referred to in Chapter 8589 does not affect the operation of the statute over the same territory within the newly formed county. See McGriff v. State, 66 Fla. 332, 63 South. Rep. 724.

The information charging illegal fishing “in the inside waters of Palm Beach (now Martin) County, Florida” shows the alleged illegal act was within the prohibited territory, but the allegation “in the inside waters” does not bring the charge within the provision of the statute which is “in any of the inside salt waters in,” etc. Besides this, the sentence is to imprisonment in the county jail for three months “on failure to pay a fine of $250.00 and costs of court,” when the penalty provided by the statute, Section 5005, Revised General Statutes of 1920, is “a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding ninety days, or both at the discretion of the court.

The information being fatally defective and the sentence in excess of that fixed by the statute, the petitioner is discharged.

Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Christensen, 126 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1936)
    …ter 8589, Acts 1921) was originally applicable to the counties of Brévard, St. Lucie, Palm Beach and Broward, but was held to apply to Martin County also when the latter county was afterwards carved out of St. Lucie County. See: Ex parte Brandamour, 91 Fla. 889, 108 Sou. Rep. 895. The 1921 Act proved very unsatisfactory to the interests of Martin County, so beginning in the year 1929 the Legislature has regularly enacted special and local legislation for Martin County, repealing said Section 8065 C. G. L.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw