L. F. CHAPMAN, AS SUPERINTENDENT, STATE PRISON FARM,
v.
T. J. PARRISH
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.
In this habeas corpus proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the discharge of T. J. Parrish from custody, holding that although his sentencing judgment contained formal defects in adjudicating guilt, the recital that he 'stands convicted' constitutes a sufficient attempted adjudication of guilt to support the sentence and prevent discharge via habeas corpus.
The Court held that while such a judgment entry may be fatally defective in clearly adjudicating guilt, the recital that the defendant 'stands convicted' implies an adjudication of guilt by inference and constitutes a sufficient attempted adjudication to support the sentence and prevent discharge on habeas corpus. Defects in judgment or sentence should be addressed through writ of error or appeal, not habeas corpus.
“Such a recital to the effect that the accused 'stands convicted' implies an adjudication of guilt (See Ex Parte McDaniel, 86 Fla. 145, 97 So. 317) by way of inference, and though not sufficient to stand against reversal on writ of error in an inferential form, is none the less such a form of attempted adjudication of guilt as will support a writ of error, and is, therefore, not wholly void in its effect as a judgment.”
Establishes the core holding that 'stands convicted' implies guilt by inference and constitutes sufficient attempted adjudication despite formal defects
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT. J. Parrish was tried and convicted of a crime and sentenced to two years in the State Penitentiary plus additional time in costs. His conviction wa…
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 Adjudication Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
— The writ of error in this case is to review the judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding whereby the petitioner was discharged from custody.
The contention of the petitioner was that he had never been adjudicated guilty of the offense for which he was tried and convicted. The judgment in that case was affirmed in this Court. See Parrish v. State, 105 Fla. 430, 141 Sou. 314. The judgment of the court was as follows, to-wit:
“Now on this day came in person the defendant T. J. Parrish in open court, and being asked by the Court whether he had anything to say why sentence of the law should nof be pronounced upon him, says nothing. It is, therefore, the judgment, order and sentence of the Court that you,-T. J. Parrish, for the crime of which you have been and stand convicted, be imprisoned for Two Years in the State Penitentiary from the date of your delivery to the officers thereof and costs of court or serve an additional three months fo start at expiration of first sentence.”
*613In Anderson v. State, opinion filed March 13, 1933, 146 Sou. 675, we said:
“In the present case the alleged judgment and sentence imposed reads as follows:
“ ‘State of Florida v. J. C. Anderson.
“ ‘Now on this day came in person the defendant J. C. Anderson, into open court after being duly arraigned entered his plea of guilty to robbery, the charge contained in the information filed herein against him. And being asked by the Court whether or not he had anything to say why sentence of the law should not now be pronounced upon him, say nothing.
“ ‘It is therefore considered by the Court that you, J. C. Anderson, for the crime of which you have been and stand convicted, do be imprisoned by confinement at hard labor in the State Prison for a period of ten (10) years.’ While such a judgment entry may be fatally defective because it does not clearly adjudicate the defendant’s guilt, nevertheless it does recite the fact that with the approval of the court the defendant has been and stands convicted of the described crime of robbery, the charge contained in the information filed against him. . Such a recital to the effect that the accused ‘stands convicted’ implies an adjudication of guilt (See Ex Parte McDaniel, 86 Fla. 145, 97 So. 317) by way of inference, and though not sufficient to stand against reversal on writ of error in an inferential form, is none the less such a form of attempted adjudication of guilt as will support a writ of error, and is, therefore, not wholly void in its effect as a judgment. The majority of the decisions, and especially those more in consonance with reason and justice, are adverse to the discharge of criminals who-have been duly convicted when the application for their release is by petition for habeas corpus based on some error, *614omission or mistake in the judgment or sentence which might have been cured or corrected by writ of error or appeal. 12 R. C. L. 1207, 1208.”
On authority of the opinion and judgment'in that case the judgment is reversed, with directions that petitioner be remanded to the custody of L. F. Chapman as Superintendent of the Florida State Prison Farm, there to. be dealt with according to law.
It is so ordered.
Reversed. '
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs specially.
(concurring specially). — I think the judgment was valid and sufficient for all purposes under the form laid down in Mathis v. State, 67 Fla. 277, 64 So. 944, and upheld in Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 34, 129 Sou. 106, 109.
Brown, J.
(concurring specially). — I think the judgment was valid and sufficient for all purposes under the form laid down in Mathis v. State, 67 Fla. 277, 64 So. 944, and upheld in Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 34, 129 Sou. 106, 109.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
House v. State, 127 Fla. 145 (Fla. 1937)…be confined in said State’s Prison at hard labor for a period of,” etc. There was no adjudication of the guilt of the defendant, which rendered the judgment and sentence incomplete. See Mathis v. State, 67 Fla. 277, 64 So. 944; Chapman v. Parrish, 114 Fla. 612, 154 So. 334. Several other like sentences were similarly imposed in cases charging the defendant with felonies, the sentences to be served consecutively and not concurrently. The' defendant- was committed to the State Penitentiary under the above s…
-
Jarvis v. Chapman, 118 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1934)…This Court has held that judgment must expressly adjudicate guilt, and the sentence should follow. State, ex rel. Owens, v. Barnes, 24 Fla. 153, 4 South Rep. 560; Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 South. Rep. 106, 69 A. L. R. 783; Chapman v. Parish, 114 Fla. 612, 154 South. Rep. 334; Lake v. McClelland, 101 Fla. 536, 134 South. Rep. 522. While a judgment of the Circuit Court is presumed to be regular and valid, it was said in Watson v. Jones, 41 Fla. 241, 25 South. Rep. 678, “Presumptions are, from necessi…
-
Tracey v. Chapman, 135 Fla. 374 (Fla. 1938)….” The judgment will be held sufficient as against an attack by habeas corpus on authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases of Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54, 146 Sou. 675; Tx Parte McDaniel, 86 Fla. 145, 97 Sou. 317; Chapman v. Parish, 114 Fla. 612, 154 Sou. 334. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed. Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, and Chapman, J. J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1930)
- Ex Parte, 86 Fla. 145 (Fla. 1923)
- Mathis v. State, 67 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1914)
- Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1933)
- St. Lucie Ests., Inc. v. Nobles, 105 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1932)
- Parrish v. State, 105 Fla. 430 (Fla. 1932)