ROBERTO R. DI MARCO, ALSO KNOWN AS LUIS A. BADILLO, AND "RICHY" MARTINEZ, 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.
This case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by a sixteen-year-old who was sentenced for robbery. The petitioner claims he did not receive statutory notice required for minors before trial. The Florida Supreme Court referred the case to a circuit judge to determine if the notice was given.
The court did not definitively rule on the issue but found it to be the pivotal point of the case. It determined that an inquiry was necessary to resolve the factual dispute regarding the notice.
“In the petition for writ of habeas corpus in this cause it is alleged that petitioner was sixteen years of age on November 18, 1954 at which time he was adjudged to be guilty and sentenced to serve two ten year sentences to run concurrently for two offenses of robbery.”
This quote establishes the core facts of the petitioner's age and conviction that form the basis of the petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner, sixteen years old at the time of sentencing in 1954, was convicted of two counts of robbery and sentenced to two concurrent ten-year t…
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
In the petition for writ of habeas corpus in this cause it is alleged that petitioner was sixteen years of age on November 18, 1954 at which time he was adjudged to be guilty and sentenced to serve two ten year sentences to run concurrently for two offenses of robbery. The petitioner further alleges that he was not married at the time that he was adjudged to be guilty nor had he been married at any time prior thereto and that notice of such charge prior to the trial thereof was not given by the court or the executive officers thereof as required by Section 932.38, F.S.A. Among other things the State, in its return, admits that the petitioner was sentenced to two ten year terms in prison (concurrent) by the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida and that on said date the petitioner was sixteen years of age but denies that the notice required by the statute aforesaid was not given. It thus appears that the pivotal point here is whether such notice was actually given. • Therefore, for the purpose of determining such question, this cause is hereby referred to the Honorable Grady Crawford, one of the Judges of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, for the purpose of conducting such inquiry as he shall require and a report thereon with his findings to this Court with áll due speed.
THOMAS, C. J„ and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DI Marco v. Cochran, 127 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1961)…ROBERTS, Justice. Upon application of the petitioner in pro. per. writ of habeas corpus was duly issued and a return filed by the respondent. See DiMarco v. Cochran, Fla., 124 So. 2d 130. Thereafter, Honorable Grady Crawford, Circuit Judge, to whom we referred this cause for the purpose of conducting an inquiry to determine whether the notice required by Section 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was given, has conducted such hearing…