STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. W. A. CROMWELL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
B. A. BROWN, AS SHERIFF OF ST. LUCIE 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.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment remanding a petitioner to the County Court for correction of an allegedly defective judgment. The Court held that while habeas corpus may test the legality of commitment, remand for correction of a bad judgment is proper practice.
Habeas corpus may be used to test the legality of a commitment, and if the commitment is found illegal due to a bad judgment, remand to the lower court for correction of the judgment is proper practice. The petitioner's objections to the sufficiency of the information came too late after entry of a guilty plea.
“The legality of the commitment may be tested by habeas corpus but if found to be illegal because of a bad judgment it is proper practice to remand the petitioner for correction of the judgment.”
Establishes the core holding that habeas corpus testing of commitment legality is proper, and remand for judgment correction is the appropriate remedy for defective judgments.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW. A. Cromwell was convicted in County Court of St. Lucie County and committed to custody. He sought habeas corpus relief in Circuit Court, challengin…
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 Habeas Corpus Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, C. J.
In this case writ of error was taken to á final judgment of the Circuit Court in habeas corpus proceedings remanding the petitioner “for proper judgment and sentence of the County Court of St. Lucie County, Florida.”
It is not contended by petitioner that the act under which he was convicted is invalid, that that trial court was without jurisdiction of the person or subject matter, or that the proceedings in the County Court of St. Lucie' County prior to the judgment and sentence were illegal. It is merely contended in the main brief that the commitment was bad because predicated on an imperfect judgment. In his reply brief petitioner in addition charges that the information does not charge an offense against the laws of the State.
As to the sufficiency of the information in so far as the objection here’made are concerned it is enough to say that such objection comes too late after a plea of guilty has b.een entered and the petitioner has subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The legality of the commitment may be tested by habeas corpus but if found to be illegal because of a bad judgment it is proper practice to remand the petitioner for correction of the judgment. Porter v. State, 62 Fla. 79, 56 So. R. 406; McDonald v. Smith, 68 Fla. 77, 66 So. R. 430; Faison v. Vestal, 71 Fla. 562, 71 So. R. 759; Simmons ex parte, 73 Fla. 998, 75 So. R. 542; Douglas v. Shackelford, 73 Fla. 889, 75 So. R. 203; Johnston v. State, 81 Fla. 783, 89 So. R. 114; State ex rel. Johnson v. Quigg, 83 Fla. 1, 90 So. R. 695; Blackwelder v. Morris, 89 Fla. 87, 103 So. R. 124; Ex Parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332, 111 So. R. 518.
The judgment below is, therefore, affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mayo, 122 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1935)…, or either of them, could be based. This case is not on all-fours with the case of Ex Parte Simmons, 73 Fla. 998, 75 Sou. 542, although it is in some respects analogous to that case. This is more like the case of State, ex rel. Cromwell, v. Brown, 98 Fla. 181, 123 Sou. 571. The case is ruled, however, by the opinion and judgment in the case of Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54, 146 Sou. 675, in which we said: “Where sentence was imposed without any definite adjudication of petitioner’s guilt, and he is b…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 81 Fla. 783 (Fla. 1921)
- Ex parte Simmons, 75 So. 542 (Fla. 1917)
- Ex parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1927)
- 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)
- Douglass v. W. J. Shackelford as Marshal of the City of Lake City, 73 Fla. 889 (Fla. 1917)
- Blackwelder v. Morris, 89 Fla. 87 (Fla. 1925)