LEWIS CLYDE C. BOYD, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed a writ of habeas corpus, holding that it could not be used to relitigate issues that were essential to the petitioner's conviction and could have been raised on appeal. The court emphasized that habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal.
No, a writ of habeas corpus will not issue where there was a remedy by appeal. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal.
“The writ of habeas corpus will not issue where there was a remedy by appeal.”
Establishes the principle that habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Lewis Clyde C. Boyd sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Florida Supreme Court, challenging his detention by respondent H. G. Cochran, J…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
Based upon the petition of Lewis Clyde C. Boyd, this Court issued its writ of habeas corpus directed to respondent H. G. Cochran, Jr., Director, Division of Corrections. To this writ respondent has now filed a return alleging matters which, if true, show cause why petitioner is legally detained and imprisoned by him.
While the return to the writ is not conclusive of the facts stated therein, § 79.06(1), F.S.A., its allegations are taken as true until impeached, and evidence is not needed to support an uncontroverted return. Sullivan v. State ex rel. McCrory, Fla.1951, 49 So.2d 794; Cooper v. Sinclair, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 702; Moat v. Mayo, Fla. 1955, 82 So.2d 591.
*628Petitioner, by his traverse to respondent’s. return, alleges facts in contradiction thereto. However, the facts controverted involve the very issues which were essential to his conviction in the trial court. The writ of habeas corpus will not issue where there was a remedy by appeal. Sullivan v. State ex rel. Cootner, Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 96.
In view of the above, it must be held that the writ heretofore issued should be and hereby is quashed.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, TT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matera v. Buchanan, 192 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…So. 2d 794. The facts set forth in the return are not conclusive, (79.06(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), but the allegations in the return are taken as true unless impeached by competent evidence. See 79.06(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Boyd v. Cochran, 1960, Fla., 118 So. 2d 627; Cooper v. Sinclair, 1953, Fla., 66 So. 2d 702, cert. denied, 346 U.S. 867, 74 S.Ct. 107, 98 L.Ed. 377. After the respondent has filed his return, the petitioner may present exceptions raising questions of law; he may traverse the facts set forth in…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Leno Joseph Risatti v. Eaton, 161 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…’s detention. Sneed v. Mayo, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 865. And habeas corpus may not be used as a substitite for an appeal. Collingsworth v. Mayo, Fla.1948, 37 So. 2d 696. Nor may it be used where there was a remedy by appeal. Boyd v. Cochran, Fla. 1960, 118 So. 2d 627. In view of the extensive examinations of the petitioner and the fact that the trial court has found that there is a conflict of opinion as to petitioner’s sanity, and after our further analysis of the record, we find no merit in the petition for h…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Neva Singleton v. Walters, 158 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1963)…ition for habeas corpus can be obtained by pursuit of the orderly available processes in the trial court and in the District Court of Appeal, there is no area within which this Court can or should grant the relief here sought. Boyd v. Cochran, Fla., 118 So. 2d 627; Cooper v. Sinclair, Fla., 66 So. 2d 702. The prayer of the petition is denied. It is so ordered. DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, THOR-NAL, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, TJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Sullivan v. State Ex Rel. McCrory, 49 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1951)
- Cooper v. Sinclair, 66 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1953)
- Moat v. Mayo, 82 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1955)
- Hitson v. Mayo, 82 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1955)