ROBERT CLIFFORD MELLETTE, JR., 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 denied a habeas corpus petition, finding that although one of the petitioner's sentences was excessive and served, a second valid sentence for a different offense meant he was still lawfully in custody.
No, the petitioner is not entitled to release on habeas corpus because he is lawfully held under a valid sentence for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, which has not yet expired.
“Respondent concedes that this sentence was excessive and that petitioner has now served longer than the maximum term for the offense described.”
Establishes the basis for the petitioner's initial claim for release.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Mellette sought release from prison via habeas corpus, claiming his sentence for uttering a forged check was excessive and had been served.…
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 Excessive Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner Mellette seeks release from the State Prison by this original proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus.
The petition and return reveal that petitioner is confined pursuant to a commitment out of the criminal court of record of Palm Beach County, under date of October 9, 1959, to enforce a two year sentence for the offense of uttering a forged bank check in the amount of $29.50. Respondent concedes that this sentence was excessive and that petitioner has now served longer than the maximum term for the offense described.
By an amendment' to his return, however, respondent revealed that he also holds petitioner under a commitment to enforce a two year sentence prescribed by the same court on the date of October 9, 1959, of the offense of breaking and entering with an intent to commit grand larceny. The two sentences were directed to be served concurrently. The allegation to support the confinement last described are supported by photostatic exhibits of court records.
It being apparent that the petitioner Mellette is now confined pursuant to a valid commitment to serve a sentence which has not yet expired, he is not entitled to discharge.
The petitioner is remanded to the custody of the respondent and the writ is discharged.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.