RAYMOND WOOD, PETITIONER,
v.
H. G. COCHRAN, JR., DIRECTOR, 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.
Raymond Wood petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming his conviction for writing checks violated his constitutional rights based on recent Florida Supreme Court precedent establishing that written checks cannot constitute forgery without proof of receipt of something of value. The Court found that Wood's actual conviction was for forgery and uttering forged instruments—distinct crimes with different penalties—and therefore his sentence was valid.
The Court held that Wood's conviction was not illegal because the actual charges and convictions were for forgery and uttering forged instruments—not simply writing worthless checks—and the sentence imposed was well within the statutory maximum allowed by the applicable Florida statutes at the time of the offense.
“an unsworn petition has no evidentiary value when met by an undisputed return which presents photostatic exhibits of court records clearly sustaining the legality of the detention”
Establishes the standard for evaluating habeas corpus petitions—unsworn allegations cannot overcome documentary evidence supporting the lawfulness of detention.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWood was convicted and sentenced to the State Prison in January 1959 on four counts of forgery and two counts of uttering a forged instrument. He rece…
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 Worthless Checks cases and more on FLexlaw
In an original proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner Wood seeks release from incarceration in the State Prison.
The unsworn petition alleges that petitioner was convicted and sentenced to the State Prison for the “offense of writing 6 checks”, all under $100 iff amount. Petitioner says that there was no allegation or proof of receipt of anything of value in exchange for the checks. He therefore claims entitlement to discharge from a six-year sentence in view of our opinions in State ex rel. Shargaa v. Culver, Fla., 113 So.2d 383, and Greer v. Culver, Fla., 113 So.2d 386. The petition was not under oath. It was thoroughly saturated with irrelevancies and immaterialities typical of such documents produced in the foreboding atmosphere of the State Prison. We, nevertheless, extended prima facie credence to the claims of the petition and required a return which has now been filed. Cash v. Culver, 3S8 U.S. 633, 79 S. Ct. 432, 3 L.Ed.2d 557. The photostatic exhibits of court records affixed to the return reveal that the petitioner was committed to the State Prison pursuant to judgments of convictions on four counts of forgery and two counts of uttering a forged instrument. He was sentenced January 7, 1959.
The record now before us reveals the inaccuracy of the allegations of the original petition which we relied upon in issuing the writ. The petitioner concedes *194that he was convicted of an offense of “writing 6 checks.” It is clear that the charge was not merely the writing and issuing of “worthless checks” but rather was the writing and uttering of forged instruments. The crimes are different and the penalties therefor are considerably different. Forgery and uttering a forged instrument are condemned by Sections 831.01 and 831.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Since the offenses here were committed prior to May 9, 1959, the effective date of Chapter 59-31, Laws of Florida, 1959, we need not concern ourselves with the effect of the later statute even if it were otherwise applicable and constitutionally enforceable. Article III, Section 32, Florida Constitution, F.S.A.; Turner v. State, 87 Fla. 155, 99 So. 334; Ex parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332, 111 So. 518. The sentence of one year on each count running consecutively was well within th£ maximum allowed by Sections 831.01 and 831.02, supra, as they were in effect at the time of the commission of the offenses. The petitioner, therefore, has no basis for complaint.
We think it appropriate to remind that Section 79.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., requires that an applicant for a writ of habeas corpus “show by affidavit or evidence” probable cause to believe that his restraint is illegal. We are not at all unmindful of the high prerogative nature of the writ of habeas corpus. Anglin v. Mayo, Fla., 88 So.2d 918. Admittedly also, we ourselves have extended considerable latitude in pleading to one seeking the issuance of this writ. Sneed v. Mayo, Fla., 66 So.2d 865. For these various reasons we gave to the instant petitioner the benefit of the doubt and overlooked the technical inadequacies of his original petition. However, for the guidance of those who might seek such relief in the future we here point out that an unsworn petition has no evidentiary value when met by an undisputed return which presents photostatic exhibits of court records clearly sustaining the legality of the detention. State ex rel. Murdock v. Mayo, 153 Fla. 256, 14 So.2d 421; State ex rel. Waldrop v. Mayo, 125 Fla. 442, 170 So. 117.
Here the allegations of the unsworn petition were shown by the return and its exhibits to be totally without merit. It is not our purpose to forestall the presentation of any legitimate claim to release from illegal restraint. We think, however, that it is not inappropriate to emphasize the existence of the orderly rules of procedure to be followed in such matters, in the hope that the procedural liberality heretofore extended will not be abused. On the contrary the rules should be observed. Finding no merit to the petition the writ is discharged and the petitioner is remanded to the custody of the respondent.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)…established, would show that the representation of counsel was of such a kind as to reduce the trial to a farce or a sham and to shock the conscience of the court.” United States v. Edwards, D.C., 152 F.Supp. 179, 185. . Wood v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 118 So. 2d 193. See also Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964,163 So. 2d 305. . Sec. 2255, Title 28 U.S.C.A. . Cases collected United States v. Wight, C.A.2, 176 F. 2d 376, 379. “For these reasons we think absence of effective representation by counsel must be strictl…
-
Matera v. Buchanan, 192 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…eding the petitioner assumes the burden of a moving party. The applicant for a writ of habeas corpus must first show by evidence or affidavit probable cause to believe that his restraint is illegal if a writ is to issue. Wood v. Cochran, 1960, Fla., 118 So. 2d 193; 79.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. When a writ issues the respondent is obligated to file a return. See Moody v. State, 1924, 87 Fla. 175, 99 So. 665; 79.05 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The writ challenges the right of a person to hold another in custody and it is encum…
-
Ellis v. State, 298 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…28 So. 57 (1900); Turner v. State, 1924, 87 Fla. 155, 99 So. 334; Ex parte Browne, 1927, 93 Fla. 332, 111 So. 518; Bazarte v. State, Fla.App.2d 1959, 114 So. 2d 500; Sing v. State, Fla. [*528] App.1st 1959, 115 So. 2d 773; Wood v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 118 So. 2d 193; Collins v. State, Fla.App.4th 1972, 271 So. 2d 156. Affirmed. McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ-, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sneed v. Mayo, 66 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1953)
- Cash v. Culver, 358 U.S. 633 (U.S. 1959)
- Hernandez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Turner v. State, 87 Fla. 155 (Fla. 1924)
- Anglin v. Mayo, 88 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1956)
- Ex parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1927)
- State of Fla. ex rel. B. "Babe" Shargaa v. Culver, 113 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1959)
- Greer v. Culver, 113 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1959)
- State v. Mayo, 125 Fla. 442 (Fla. 1936)
- State of Fla. Ex rel. James Caywood Murdock v. Mayo, 153 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1943)