STATE, EX REL.,
v.
NATHAN MAYO, ET AL.
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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the validity of an information and judgment convicting Johnnie Taylor of robbery, rejecting his habeas corpus challenge that the information was defective and that no valid judgment of conviction existed. The court affirmed that both the information and the sentence were sufficient to support the prisoner's lawful incarceration.
The court held that the information was sufficient against attack in habeas corpus proceedings, and that the judgment and sentence were likewise sufficient to support the prisoner's continued incarceration under the robbery conviction.
“The Petitioner contends that the information under which he was convicted and is now held was void for the reason that it charged no offense against the law of the State of Florida and contends further that there was no judgment of conviction upon which the sentence could be imposed.”
Statement of the two main contentions raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus proceeding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnnie Taylor (alias Eddie Kirkley) was committed to the State Prison under two commitments from the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County …
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 Judgment Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of habeas corpus was iss'ued by a Justice of this Court directed to Nathan Mayo as State Prison Custodian and L. F. Chapman as State Prison Superintendent to test the validity of the incarceration of one Johnnie Taylor alias Eddie Kirkley.
The return of the Respondents shows that the Petitioner is’ held in custody under a commitment issuing out of the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, Florida, and under which the Petitioner was committed to the State Prison to serve a period of ten years therein on conviction *580under an information charging him with the crime of robbery, such commitment being dated the 13th day of March, 1930, and also that the Petitioner is held under another commitment is'sued by the same court on the same day upon conviction under an information charging the receiving of stolen goods or property, for which offense he was sentenced to serve a period of two years and six months, that sentence to run concurrently with the sentence above referred to. The latter sentence expired by the petitioner being in custody and the running of time on the 13th day of September, 1932, so that commitment is not involved here.
The Petitioner contends that the information under which he was convicted ^and is now held was void for the reason that it charged no offense against the law of the State of Florida and contends further that there was' no judgment of conviction upon which the sentence could be imposed.
As the first question presented, we hold that the information is sufficient against an attack in habeas corpus' proceedings under authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Amos v. Chapman, which was filed in this Court on February 21, 1933, and is reported in 146 Sou. 98.
As to the s'econd question presented, we hold that the judgment and sentence was sufficient as against an attack by writ of habeas corpus under authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Anderson v. Chapman, filed in this Court March 13, 1933, and reported 146 Sou. 675.
Therefore, the motion for dis'charge of the Petitioner is denied and Petitioner is remanded to the custody of the Respondents to be dealt with according to law.
It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spinney v. Winter Park Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 120 Fla. 453 (Fla. 1935)…the conveyance to the answering defendants was made and executed after the mortgage, and therefore, the conveyance to the answering defendants was made subject to the mortgage lien. In Ala-Fla. Co. v. Mays, 111 Fla. 100, 111 Fla. 783 (149 So. 61 and 149 Sou. 661), we said: (See text, 111 Fla. 108). “It is conceded that where a grantee takes a conveyance subject to a mortgage he will be presumed to have included the mortgage debt in the purchase price. Pomeroy Eq. Jur. (3rd Ed.), Vol. 3, Sec. 1205; Shuler v…
-
Zimmerman v. Hill, 100 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…w relied upon Spinney v. Winter Park Building & Loan Ass’n, 120 Fla. 453, 162 So. 899, on pages 903, 904, wherein the court stated: “* * * In Alabama-Florida Co. v. Mays, 111 Fla. 100, text 108, 149 So. 61, 64 [91 A.L.R. 139] and Id., 111 Fla. 783, 149 So. 661, we said: ‘It is conceded that, where a grantee takes a conveyance subject to a mortgage, he will be presumed to have included the mortgage debt in the purchase price. Pomeroy Eq.Jur. (3rd Ed.) vol. 3, § 1205; Shuler v. Hardin, 25 Ind. 386; McDonald…
-
Calder v. Richardson, 118 F.2d 249 (5th Cir. 1941)…Valley Trust Co. v. Bussy, 5 Cir., 49 F. 2d 881; Slottow v. Hull Inv. Co., 100 Fla. 244, 129 So. 577; Ackley v. Noggle, 97 Fla. 640, 121 So. 882; Brownson v. Hannah, 93 Fla. 223, 111 So. 731, 51 A.L.R. 976; Alabama-Florida Co. v. Mays, 111 Fla. 783, 149 So. 661.…
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1933)