ROBERT FREDERICK KINARD, PETITIONER,
v.
H. G. COCHRAN, JR., DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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 granted a writ of habeas corpus, ordering the discharge of a minor petitioner because the state failed to provide required statutory notice to his parents or guardian before his trial. This decision emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards for minors in the justice system.
Yes, the trial court erred by failing to comply with the statutory notice requirements. The failure to provide such notice is fatal to the proceedings, entitling the petitioner to discharge.
“In the event that the name of such parent or guardian is not known or made known to the court or executive officer or cannot be reasonably ascertained by him, then such notice shall be given to any other relative or friend whom such minor may designate.”
This quote establishes the statutory requirement for notice to a minor's parents or guardian, or a designated relative/friend if the parents/guardian are unknown.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Frederick Kinard, a minor, was brought before a Florida court and charged with an offense. The court proceeded to trial without providing notic…
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 Due Process Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon petition of Robert Frederick Ki-nard this court issued a writ of habeas corpus on July 7, 1959, to which the respondent filed his return on July 14, 1959.
After due consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, respondent’s return, and the petitioner’s answer to respondent’s return, we conclude that the petitioner is entitled to be discharged.
The record discloses that there was no compliance with § 932.38, F.S.A., which reads:
“When any minor, not married, may be charged with any offense and brought before any of the courts, including municipal courts, of this state, due notice of such charge prior to the trial thereof shall be given to the parents or guardian of such minor, provided the name and address of such parent or guardian may be known to the court, or to the executive officers thereof. In the event that the name of such parent or guardian is not known or made known to the court or executive officer or cannot be reasonably ascertained by him, then such notice shall be given to any other relative or friend whom such minor may designate.”
The failure to comply with any of the alternatives in the statute is fatal herein *844and, therefore, we must, of necessity, order the petitioner discharged from the custody of the respondent, without prejudice to further proceedings in accordance with due process of law.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
State ex rel. Fred M. FOX v. Cochran, 126 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1961)…had been established that the relator’s parents were deceased. Since there was a failure to comply with any of the alternatives in the statute, it follows that the relator is entitled to relief under the rule enunciated in Kinard v. Cochran, Fla., 113 So. 2d 843. Accordingly, the petitioner must be discharged. However, he shall be retained in custody by the respondent to be by him held and safely kept until the further order of the appropriate court on the charges of the in-formations pursuant to which he w…
-
Michell v. State of Fla. ex rel. John Thomas Callahan, Jr., 154 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…ran, Fla.1961, 129 So. 2d 426; Williams v. Cochran, Fla. 1961, 126 So. 2d 887; McGuirk v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 126 So. 2d 555; Thompson v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 126 So. 2d 564; Raggen v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 126 So. 2d 145; and Kinard v. Cochran, Fla.1959, 113 So. 2d 843. In all of the cited cases (habeas corpus proceedings in the Supreme Court of Florida), the petitioners had commenced upon the execution of their sentences. In all of the cases, the petitioners were released from detention under the judgments and se…
-
Johnson v. Cochran, 124 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1960)…procedures to be followed by the officers of the trial courts. An increasing number of petitions for habeas corpus grounded on alleged failure to meet the requirements of this statute have recently come to our notice. E. g. Kinard v. Cochran, Fla., 113 So. 2d 843. However, any changes in the statute must necessarily be accomplished by the Legislature rather than by the Court. In the instant case we conclude that the requirements of the statute have been met and, therefore, the writ must be discharged and th…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence