ROBERT F. MCGUIRK, 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 court held that the parent's alleged knowledge of incarceration was insufficient to satisfy statutory notice requirements for a minor's sentencing.
A minor petitioner was sentenced for robbery without his parent being formally notified as required by statute. The respondent argued the mother had a…
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 Actual Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
The court issued a writ of habeas corpus on the representation that the petitioner was a minor at the time he was sentenced, had never been married, and that no notice was given to his parent in accordance with the provisions of Section 932.38, Florida Statutes 1957, F.S.A. The petitioner, respondent concedes, was sentenced to serve a prison term of five years and another six months to life, consecutively, for two separate robberies. Furthermore, the respondent concedes that the petitioner was not 21 years of age at the time.
It is the position of the respondent that the case is ruled by our decision in Bowen v. Cochran, Fla., 121 So.2d 154, and that the petitioner is not entitled to his discharge because his mother had actual notice of his incarceration. The respondent relies on the allegation that
“petitioner’s mother stated to one Clarence P. Nilles, Illinois Parole Office Supervisor, 160 North LaSalle, Chicago, Illinois, that subsequent to his arrest for the above mentioned offenses, petitioner wrote her addressing same to her home in Saginaw, Michigan, while incarcerated in the Dade County Jail awaiting trial, that he was being so held in said jail, and requested that his mother forward him some money with which to enable him to purchase some cigarettes, et cetera.”
It is our view that the above language quoted from the return is not sufficient to show actual knowledge on the part of the parent that the petitioner was held to answer the serious charges of robbery for which he was eventually sent to the State Prison.
It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner be discharged from further imprisonment under the present judgment and remanded for trial on the charges of the information pursuant to which he was originally incarcerated. Cash v. Culver, Fla., 122 So.2d 179.
THOMAS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Michell v. State of Fla. ex rel. John Thomas Callahan, Jr., 154 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…32.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. See Vellucci v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 138 So. 2d 510; Willis v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 131 So. 2d 728; Giles v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 129 So. 2d 426; Williams v. Cochran, Fla. 1961, 126 So. 2d 887; McGuirk v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 126 So. 2d 555; Thompson v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 126 So. 2d 564; Raggen v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 126 So. 2d 145; and Kinard v. Cochran, Fla.1959, 113 So. 2d 843. In all of the cited cases (habeas corpus proceedings in the Supreme Court of Florida), the petitioners had…
-
McINTOSH v. State, 274 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…ild and that his mother visited the jail repeatedly over a period of three and one-half months before trial. Craig v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 132 So. 2d 196, is to like effect. Perhaps the closest case to the present one is McGuirk v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 126 So. 2d 555, in which the State proved knowledge on the parent’s part that the petitioner was “in the Dade County Jail awaiting trial.” That is slightly more specific than the strongest case which can be made for the knowledge held by McIntosh’s father. Habeas…
Authorities Cited
- In re Court Comm. to Study & Report on Question of Methods of Determining Those Who Should Be Admitted to Practice in Fla., 121 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1960)
- LEE v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 122 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1960)
- Cash v. Culver, 122 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1960)