EX PARTE CHARLES BROWNE, ALIAS CHARLES PISELLIA, ALIAS CHARLES PISELLI, ALIAS CHARLES PISELLA, ALIAS JOSEPH JOHN YOUNG
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.
Charles Browne, convicted of murder in the first degree, sought habeas corpus relief challenging his death sentence by electrocution. The Florida Supreme Court held that because the crime was committed in October 1923, before the January 1, 1924 statute replacing hanging with electrocution took effect, the sentence of death by electrocution was unauthorized, and the petitioner must be resentenced to death by hanging.
The death sentence by electrocution was unauthorized because the crime was committed in October 1923, before the electrocution statute took effect. Under Article III, Section 32 of the Florida Constitution, criminal statutes operate prospectively and do not apply to crimes committed before their effective date. The petitioner must be resentenced to death by hanging, the lawful penalty at the time of the crime.
“The repeal or amendment of any criminal statute shall not affect the prosecution or punishment of any crime committed before such repeal or amendment.”
Statement of the controlling constitutional provision that prevents retroactive application of criminal law changes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Browne was indicted on November 23, 1923, for a murder committed on October 21, 1923. His first conviction was reversed on appeal. A second co…
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 Prospective Application Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, P. J.
In habeas corpus proceedings it is made to appear that Charles Brown, alias Charles Pisellia, alias Charles Piselli, alias Charles Pisella, alias Joseph John Young, was on November 23, 1923, indicted for a murder alleged to have been committed October 21, 1923. A judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree was reversed. Browne v. State, 88 Fla. 457, 102 South. Rep. 546. A second conviction of murder in the first degree was affirmed. Browne v. State, 92 Fla. —, 109 South. Rep. 811. The sentence imposed by the judgment of conviction is death by electrocution, and the petitioner is held in custody at the State prison under such judgment.
Prior to January 1, 1924, the statutory death penalty was inflicted by hanging. Chapter 9169, Acts of 1923, provides that “on and after January 1st, A. L. 1924, death by hanging as a means of punishment -for crime in Florida is hereby abolished and electrocution, or death by ele'etricity substituted therefor,” with appropriate regulations.
Section 32, Article III of the State Constitution provides that “The repeal or amendment of any criminal statute shall not affect the prosecution or punishment of any crime committed before such repeal or amendment.”
The effect of this constitutional provision is to give to all criminal legislation a prospective effectiveness, that is to say, the repeal or'amendment by subsequent legislation of a pre-existing criminal statute does not become effective either as a repeal or as an amendment of such pre-existing statute in so far as offenses are concerned that have been already committed prior to the taking effect of such repealing or amending law. Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141, 28 South. Rep. 57; Washington v. Dowling, — Fla. — , 109 South. Rep. 588.
As the crime in this case was committed in October, 1923, before Chapter 9169 became effective January 1, 1924, the sentence upon conviction of a capital offense should have been by hanging, therefore the judgment and sentence of death by electrocution was unauthorized. In affirming the judgment this question was not presented or considered.
Where a person is held under a commitment issued on an unauthorized or invalid judgment and sentence, the legality of the detention in custody may be tested in habeas corpus proceedings, and if the judgment is found to be illegal the petitioner may be remanded for a proper sentence, there being no illegality in the proceedings prior to the judgment and sentence. Faison v. Vestal, 71 Fla. 562, 71 South. 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 committed, and not by electrocution under the statute that became effective January 1, 1924.
It is considered, ordered and adjudged that the petitioner be remanded to the custody of the Commissioner of Agriculture, who under the Constitution has supervision of the State prison, with directions that the petitioner be delivered to the Sheriff of Volusia County to be taken before the Circuit Court in due course for a proper sentence under the conviction of murder in the first degree.
It is so ordered.
Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sims v. State, 754 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2000)…not be retroactively applied to Sims because to do so would violate article X, section 9 of the Florida Constitution as that provision has been interpreted by this Court in Washington v. Dowling, 92 Fla. 601, 109 So. 588 (1926), and Ex parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332, 111 So. 518 (1927); and (4) the trial court erred in relying on article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution, as amended in 1998. In light of our holding that the new law may constitutionally apply to Sims, we need not determine the applicabil…
-
Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…n or the punishment of a crime committed before the amendment becomes effective. See: Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141, 28 So. 57 (1900); Whatley v. State, 46 Fla. 145, 35 So. 80 (1903); Plummer v. State, 83 Fla. 689, 92 So. 222 (1922); Ex Parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332, 111 So. 518 (1927); Bazarte v. State, 114 So. 2d 500 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1959). Indeed, three Florida appellate decisions specifically hold that the punishments provided by statute at time of the offense are controlling over different punishments provide…
-
Lee v. State, 128 Fla. 319 (Fla. 1937)…in error was convicted. We are dealing with a question of procedure — a question relating to the time within which a person convicted of [*322] crime may seek appellate review of the judgment of conviction. The case of Ex Parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332, 111 So. 518, cited by plaintiff in error, is therefore not in point. That case dealt with a statute changing the method of punishment in capital cases and came squarely within the quoted constitutional provision. The case of Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291, 12 So…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Abe Washington v. Dowling, 92 Fla. 601 (Fla. 1926)
- Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1900)
- Browne v. State, 92 Fla. 699 (Fla. 1926)
- Johnson v. State, 81 Fla. 783 (Fla. 1921)
- Browne v. State, 88 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1924)
- Ex parte Simmons, 75 So. 542 (Fla. 1917)
- Cannon Porter v. State, 62 Fla. 79 (Fla. 1911)
- Faison v. Vestal, 71 Fla. 562 (Fla. 1916)
- State v. Quigg, 83 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1922)
- McDonald v. Smith, 68 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1914)