EX PARTE, YOUNG FERRIS
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.
Young Ferris challenged his imprisonment via habeas corpus, arguing his sentence was void because it lacked a proper judgment of conviction. The Florida Supreme Court agreed and remanded him for resentencing after entry of a proper judgment of conviction.
The sentence was void for want of a proper judgment of conviction. The proper remedy is to remand the prisoner to the trial court for entry of a proper judgment of conviction and imposition of an appropriate sentence according to law.
“Where, upon habeas corpus, it appears that á sentence to the penitentiary is void, because of want of a proper judgment of conviction to support it, the proper disposition to be made of the prisoner is to remand him to the appropriate court of first instance to be resentenced in due and legal form, after the entry of a proper judgment adjudicating the defendant's guilt of the precise crime for which the sentence of- the law is authorized to be imposed.”
Establishes the holding that a sentence lacking a proper judgment of conviction is void and the proper remedy is remand for resentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung Ferris and Joe Whiting were convicted of a crime in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County. On October 18, 1927, the trial court de…
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 Void Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
A purported judgment of the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, relied upon as the basis for the petitioner’s' detention as a prisoner in the State Prison, reads as follows:
“Comes now the defendants Young Ferris' and Joe AVhiting with their Counsel, W. K. Zewadski, Jr., and presented and argued to the Court a motion for a new trial for the crime of which they were and stand convicted and the Court being fully advised in the premises, denied said motion and pronounced sentence on the defendants as follows':
“It is the judgment of the Court and the sentence of the law that you Young Ferris and you Joe AVhiting and each of you be taken by the Sheriff or his lawful deputy to the State’s Prison of the State of Florida, and be delivered to the principal keeper thereof, there to be confined in said State’s Prison at hard labor for a period of Twenty (20) years each from the date of your incarceration therein.”
The above purported judgment and sentence was rendered by the Criminal Court of Record on October 18, 1927, which was prior to the decision of this Court in the case of Neoma Caughn v. State, 98 Fla. 185, 122 Sou. Rep. 565, wherein we held an exactly similar sentence void for want of a proper judgment of conviction upon which to base it.
*585Where, upon habeas corpus, it appears that á sentence to the penitentiary is void, because of want of a proper judgment of conviction to support it, the proper disposition to be made of the prisoner is to remand him to the appropriate court of first instance to be resentenced in due and legal form, after the entry of a proper judgment adjudicating the defendant’s guilt of the precise crime for which the sentence of- the law is authorized to be imposed.
It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the prisoner, Young Ferris', be and he is hereby remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida, to be produced by said Sheriff before the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, Florida, for entry of a proper judgment and the imposition of an appropriate sentence according to law.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Finch v. Hon. Nathan Mayo, 137 Fla. 762 (Fla. 1939)…of (15) fifteen years from date of your incarceration therein.” There was no judgment of conviction. The verdict is adequate to support a judgment of conviction but there must be a judgment of conviction to support a sentence. See Ex parte Ferris, 111 Fla. 584, 149 Sou. 580; Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54, 146 Sou. 675; State ex rel v. Mayo, 129 Fla. 428, 176 Sou. 434; Lewis v. Mayo, 127 Fla. 488, 173 Sou. 346. [*764] Petitioner also shows that he began his service of sentence in the State Prison in Apr…
Authorities Cited
- Neoma Cauhn v. State, 98 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1929)