KENNETH HEWETT, 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 court held that notice to parents of a minor charged with an offense is not required if the minor was married at the time of trial, even if subsequently divorced.
Petitioner, a minor at the time of his trial, sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging his parents were not notified as required by statute. Responden…
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.
In conformity with custom, this court elected to treat a letter from Kenneth L. Hewett as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
We issued said writ on October 20, 1959, because petitioner’s allegations indicated a possible violation of F.S. § 932.-38, F.S.A.1
Section 932.38 provides in pertinent part:
“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.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Respondent by his return admits that petitioner was a minor at the time of his trial and that his parents were not notified. However, the respondent contends that such notification was unnecessary because the petitioner at the time of trial had been married and subsequently divorced.
We agree with the respondent that notification was not required under the facts of this case. The instant statute only applies to unmarried minors. Any question as to the effect of a subsequent change in *4marital status was clearly answered in Milligan v. State, 1923, 109 Fla. 219, 147 So. 260, 262, where, with reference to Section-932.38, this court said:
“The marital relationship] having been established, its dissolution by annulment or divorce does not revitalize the rights conferred by the statute.”
We thus conclude that the writ should be discharged and the petitioner remanded to custody of the respondent.
. THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward v. Dugger, 508 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…file a belated motion for post-conviction relief if the actions of her attorney had frustrated her intention to file such a motion in a timely fashion.1 The letter was accordingly construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, Hewett v. Cochran, 117 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1960), and Secretary Dugger was named the respondent in the cause and was directed to show cause why relief should not be granted. In his response, Dugger argues that no relief is necessary from this court because Ward has until June 27, 1987,…
Authorities Cited
- Kinard v. Cochran, 113 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1959)
- Milligan v. State, 109 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1933)