E. J. LEWIS
v.
ROY BOOTH, SHERIFF
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.
E. J. Lewis sought habeas corpus relief from a conviction and sentence for prohibition law violations in Pinellas County. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of habeas corpus, holding that the sentence imposed was within statutory limits and properly imposed.
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that because the judgment and sentence imposed were within the limits authorized by statute and no showing was made that the sentence had been revoked or duly satisfied, the habeas corpus court properly required remand of the prisoner.
“The judgment and sentence imposed was within the limits authorized by the statute, and no showing having been made that the sentence had ever been revoked or duly satisfied, it was properly held sufficient on habeas corpus to require a remand of the prisoner.”
States the court's holding that a sentence within statutory limits supported by proper conviction requires remand on habeas corpus absent revocation or satisfaction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis was convicted by jury in County Court of Pinellas County for unlawfully possessing and transporting intoxicating liquor for sale. He was sentenc…
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 Sentencing Within Statutory Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error, E. J. Lewis, was convicted in the County Court of Pinellas County for violation of the prohibition laws and by habeas corpus sought relief from imprisonment imposed upon him by the sentence of the court that tried him.
The return of the writ of habeas corpus shows a judgment against the petitioner for habeas corpus reading as follows:
“The defendant, E. J. Lewis, upon being caused to stand before the bar in custody of the Sheriff was asked by the Court if he had anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced upon him and he answering nothing in bar or preclusion thereof, the Judge pronounced the following sentence, to-wit:
“ ‘You, E. J. Lewis, having been found guilty by by a jury of the crime of unlawfully having in your possession intoxicating liquor; unlawfully having in your possession intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; unlawfully transport intoxicating liquor, and unlawfully transport intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, the Court adjudges you to be guilty. It is therefore the sentence of the law and the judgment and order of this Court that you, E. J. Lewis, .for your said offense for which you have been and do now stand convicted, pay a fine of $500.00 and serve 90 days in *298the County Jail of Pinellas County, Florida. In default of the payment of said Fine you serve an additional term of Ninety Days in the County jail.’
“Thereupon, the defendant was remanded to the custody of the Sheriff.”
The judgment and sentence imposed was within the limits authorized by the statute, and no showing having been made that the sentence had ever been revoked or duly satisfied, it was properly held sufficient on habeas corpus to require a remand of the prisoner. Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54, 146 Sou. Rep. 675.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.