GEORGE W. SPENCER, PETITIONER,
v.
H. G. COCHRAN, JR., DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1960-01-06
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOBSON, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
117 So. 2d 4 Florida Supreme Court (1960)

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding it lacked merit. The court suggested the petitioner pursue relief through the State's Pardon Board or Parole Commission.


Holding

No, the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.


Key Quotes

“This Court has carefully considered the letter of 11/25/59 from George W. Spencer, the petitioner, directed to the Honorable Elwyn Thomas, Chief Justice of this Court, as an application of said petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus.”

Establishes the nature of the filing before the court.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

George W. Spencer, the petitioner, sent a letter to the Chief Justice requesting a writ of habeas corpus. This was considered by the Florida Supreme C…

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.

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This Court has carefully considered the letter of 11/25/59 from George W. Spencer, the petitioner, directed to the Honorable Elwyn Thomas, Chief Justice of this Court, as an application of said petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus.- This Court has likewise carefully reviewed the file in this cause consisting of petitioner’s original application for habeas corpus, the writ issued pursuant thereto, the return of the respondent and the order of this Court dated November 17, 1959 remanding the petitioner to the custody of respondent.

The instant application above referred to must be denied but specifically without prejudice to the petitioner asserting the facts therein and in his previous petitions set forth before the State’ Pardon Board or the State Parole Commission.

THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOBSON, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw