STATE, EX REL. R. C. MAUDLIN, ALIAS LEROY HOWARD, AND FREEDA VALLEY
v.
DAN HARDIE, SHERIFF, DADE COUNTY
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.
This case concerns whether an accessory before the fact can be sentenced before the principal offender. The court held that while the conviction of the accessory is permissible, sentencing must await the principal's sentencing.
No, a judgment of conviction against an accessory before the fact requires that the principal offender has been sentenced. While the accessory can be tried and convicted, sentencing must be delayed until the principal is sentenced.
“An accessory may be placed on trial with his principal and both may be found guilty by the jury, one as principal and the other as accessory, but before a judgment of conviction may be entered against the latter the judgment must be entered against the former.”
This quote establishes the rule that the principal must be sentenced before the accessory.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners were convicted as accessories before the fact to uttering a forged instrument. They sought release via habeas corpus after being remanded …
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 Accessory Before The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
— The writ of error in this case is to a judgment in habeas corpus proceedings remanding the petitioners lo the custody of the sheriff under capias issued on a judgment entered in the criminal court of record in a certain ■cause wherein the petitioners were convicted of being ac*375cessories before the fact of the crime of uttering a false, forged and counterfeited instrument in writing.
The record shows that the principal adjudged guilty on a plea of guilty of committing the forgery involved was adjudged guilty thereof on the day succeeding the day upon which judgment was entered against these petitioners, although she had pleaded guilty prior thereto.
In Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299, 105 Sou. 834, we held:
“An accessory may be placed on trial with his principal and both may be found guilty by the jury, one as principal and the other as accessory, but before a judgment of conviction may be entered against the latter the judgment must be entered against the former. It is true that the conviction of the principals is an essential prerequisite, except in certain cases, to the punishment of the accessory. See Bowen v. State, 25 Fla. 645, 6 South Rep. 459; Ex Parte Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 South. Rep. 65; Daughtrey v. State, 46 Fla. 109, 35 South. Rep. 397.”
On authority of the case above cited, we hold that the judgment remanding the petitioners to the custody of the sheriff was a proper judgment so far as it went, but it should have gone further and remanded the petitioners to the custody of the sheriff to be by him safely kept until the next succeeding term of the criminal court of record and to have them then presented in that court to receive sentence according to law.
For the reasons stated, the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions that judgment be modified to comply with the suggestion above stated and, when so modified, shall stand affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
*376Davis,. C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hysler v. State, 136 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1939)…v. State, 120 Fla. 707, 163 So. 38; In re Vann, opinion filed January 14, 1939. I have examined the cases relied on by petitioner, Kelley v. State, 79 Fla. 182, 83 So. 909; Flynn v. State, 86 Fla. 467, 98 So. 76; State, ex rel. Mauldin, v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 374, 154 So. 183. These cases hold that conviction and punishment of the principal must be done at the same time or must precede the conviction and punishment of the accessory. This doctrine is still in force in this state and what has been said here in…
-
State v. Peel, 111 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…Vann, [136 Fla. 113] 186 So. 424, opinion filed January 14, 1939. “I have examined the cases relied on by petitioner, Kelley v. State, 79 Fla. 182, 83 So. 909, 16 A.L.R. 1465; Flynn v. State, 86 Fla. 467, 98 So. 76; State ex rel. Maudlin v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 374, 154 So. 183. These cases hold that conviction and punishment of the principal must be done at the same time or must precede the conviction and punishment of the accessory. This doctrine is still in force in this state and what' has been said here i…1 / 2
-
Brown v. State, 672 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ng him as an accessory after the fact where the principal has been acquitted of the underlying felony. We again disagree. In support of his argument, Brown cites Hysler v. State, 136 Fla. 563, 187 So. 261 (1939) and State ex rel. Maudlin v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 374, 154 So. 183 (1934), both of which recite the rule at common law that the conviction and punishment of the principal must precede or at the very least, accompany the conviction of the accessory. Brown’s reliance upon these cases is misplaced. First…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex-parte Mack Bowen, 25 Fla. 214 (Fla. 1889)
- Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1925)
- Bowen v. State, 25 Fla. 645 (Fla. 1889)
- Buck Daughtrey v. State, 46 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1903)