RAYMOND L. BOWEN, PETITIONER,
v.
H. G. COCHRAN, JR., 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.
Actual notice to parents of a minor's charges satisfies statutory notice requirements, even if formal service is lacking.
A minor prisoner sought habeas corpus, alleging his sentence was illegal due to lack of parental notification as required by statute. Although parents…
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 Directory Statutory Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
On April 13, 1960, while in prison, Raymond L. Bowen petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus on the principal ground that at the time of his trial and sentence he was a minor of seventeen years and that his parents were not notified of the charge against him prior to his trial, as required by Section 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. It is petitioner’s contention that the State’s failure to comply with the commands of F.S. § 932.38, F.S.A., renders his sentence and subsequent incarceration illegal.1
We issued the writ and in due course received respondent’s return to the same. Our examination of the record before us discloses that, although the petitioner’s parents were not notified either by service of summons or by registered mail, they did, in fact, receive actual notice of their son’s predicament prior to his trial. It appears that the petitioner’s mother and father visited him at the Pinellas County jail in Clearwater some two weeks prior to the date of his conviction and sentencing.
This court, in the case of Snell v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 84 So.2d 581, 582, which involved a similar factual situation, decided the precise point raised herein adversely to the petitioner’s position. We quote from that case :
"An examination of the cited statute will reveal that the only mandatory requirement is that due notice be given. The method of giving the notice suggested by the law is merely directory. No particular method is mandatorily prescribed. We have held that actual knowledge by the parents of the existence of the charge prior to trial is acceptable as the due notice required by the statute. See Pitts v. State, 88 Fla. 438, 102 So. 554.”
For the reasons above stated we conclude that the writ heretofore issued should be, and hereby is, discharged and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the respondent.
It is so ordered,
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Charley Pitts v. State, 88 Fla. 438 (Fla. 1924)
- Kinard v. Cochran, 113 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1959)
- Snell v. Mayo, 84 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1956)