EX PARTE PERRY ACREE
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.
Perry Acree sought habeas corpus discharge from a murder conviction, arguing the grand jury that indicted him was improperly recalled after the court term had adjourned. The Florida Supreme Court rejected this challenge, holding that the court's recess (not adjournment sine die) gave it authority to recall the grand jury and the indictment was validly found.
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to discharge because the court's recess—not an adjournment for the term—gave the court authority to recall the grand jury under Section 8221 (5955), Comp. Gen. Laws, 1927, and prior case law.
“In habeas corpus proceedings it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to a discharge from custody under a conviction for murder in the first degree on the ground that the indictment was found by a grand jury that was recalled after the term of the Circuit Court had been 'adjourned without day, or recessed without day, [*374] and no special order having been made adjourning or recessing said court to any future day.' Such contention cannot be sustained.”
Sets forth the petitioner's argument and the court's initial rejection of it.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter the Circuit Court recessed on March 26, 1932, it was reconvened on March 28, 1932, when the court ordered the grand jury to appear on March 29, …
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
In habeas corpus proceedings it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to a discharge from custody under a conviction for murder in the first degree on- the ground that the indictment was found by a grand jury that was recalled after the term of the Circuit Court had been “adjourned without day, or recessed without day, *374and no special order having been made adjourning or recessing said court to any future day.” Such contention cannot be sustained.
The transcript of the record shows that the court was in session and after transacting business on March 26, 1932, the “court did recess.” On March 28, 1932, the court ordered the sheriff to summon to the courthouse in Bartow, Florida, “the regular grand jury selected for the Spring Term of said court which is now in recess on the 29th day of March, A. D. 1932,” on which latter day the court was in session and the indictment was found and returned in open court. The “court having received the above presentment, and having inspected and approved the same, the clerk was ordered to file the same. Court did then recess until Thursday, March 31, A. D. 1932, at 10:00 o’clock A. M.” The conviction and sentence occurred April 16, 1932. The court adjourned sine die on October 1, 1932.
The record entry of March 26, 1932, that “court did then recess,” shows there was no adjournment for the term, even though the recess was not to a stated future day; and the court had authority to recall the grand jury. Section 8221 (5955), Comp. Gen. Laws, 1927; Green v. State, 60 Fla. 22, 53 So. 610; Cannon v. State, 62 Fla. 20, 57 So. 240.
The petitioner is remanded.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Bufokd, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brannon v. State, 117 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1934)…judge to make a formal order vacating his order discharging such grand jury, since the order recalling them is tantamount to a vacation of the order discharging them.” See also Cannon v. State, 62 Fla. 20, 57 Sou. 204; Ex Parte Acree 110 Fla. 373, 149 Sou. 15. • We have considered other assignments of error and find that no reversible error is made to appear. The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed and it is so ordered. Affirmed.- Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur. Davis, C. J., concurs in…
Authorities Cited
- McQueen v. State, 60 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1910)
- Cannon v. State, 62 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1911)