NORTON DOYLE WILLIAMS, 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 held that failure to notify a minor's legal guardian of charges against him violates statutory due process under Section 932.38, and therefore petitioner Williams's conviction for escape was illegally obtained and must be vacated. Williams is released from the sentence imposed for that conviction, though the underlying charge remains pending.
The court held that failure to comply with Section 932.38's requirement to notify a minor's parents or guardian of charges prior to trial constitutes a deprivation of statutory due process that invalidates the conviction. Williams must be released from custody under the escape conviction, though the underlying charge remains pending.
“While we are not committed to the doctrine that such notice is an essential of organic due process we are bound to recognize and insist upon compliance with the legislative prescription.”
Establishes the court's position that statutory due process compliance is mandatory even if not constitutionally required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was sentenced to four years in prison in June 1957 for an initial felony conviction. In November 1957, he was convicted of escape and sentenc…
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 Substantive Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
By an original proceeding the petitioner Williams seeks release from the State prison under a writ of habeas corpus because of failure of the trial court to comply with the provisions of Section 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
We must determine whether the petitioner is entitled to release account of the failure of the court to notify petitioner’s legal guardian of the fact .that the petitioner was charged with the offense of escape prior to his trial therefor.
Petitioner Williams has directed to this Court an informal letter contending that his incarceration in the State prison is illegal. We have disregarded the informality and have treated the communication as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We required a return. By the return it is clear that on June 24, 1957, petitioner was sentenced to a term of four years in the State prison pursuant to conviction on a felony charge. Thereafter on November 11, 1957, petitioner was sentenced to a term of two years in the State prison pursuant to conviction of the crime of escape. It was provided that the two-year sentence should begin to run at the expiration of the sentence which he was then serving. The return advises us that petitioner completed serving the original four-year sentence on December 12, 1960. He is, therefore, now being detained pursuant to the two-year sentence for the crime of escape. It is admitted that prior to the trial and conviction of the petitioner for the crime of escape there was a total failure to notify his mother, who was his legal guardian, that the charges were pending against him. In view of certain prior decisions of this Court the respondent submits the matter for appropriate disposition by us.
We have held that the crime of escape condemned by Section 944.40, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is a substantive offense subject to punishment in the manner therein prescribed. State ex rel. Wilson v. Culver, 110 So.2d 674; Melton v. Culver, 107 So.2d 378.
Section 932.38, Florida Statutes, F. S.A., provides in sum that when an unmarried minor is charged “with any offense” *888and is brought before any of the courts of this state, “due notice of such charge prior to the trial thereof” shall be given to the parents or guardian of such minor. Admittedly, in the instant case no such notice was furnished to the parent or guardian of the accused petitioner when he was charged with the substantive offense of escape. We have held that failure to comply with the provisions of Section 932.38, supra, constitutes a deprivation of statutory due process which will Invalidate a conviction following upon such non-compliance. Kinard v. Cochran, 113 So.2d 843. While we are not committed to the doctrine that such notice is an essential of organic due process we are bound to recognize and insist upon compliance with the legislative prescription.
The respondent having admitted non-compliance with the statutory requirement, it is therefore apparent that the subsequent conviction of the petitioner was illegally obtained. We have recently held that such notice must be given preliminary to the trial of an unmarried minor on the charge of escape. Raggen v. Cochran, 126 So.2d 145.
Finding as we do' that the petitioner is being illegally restrained of his liberty pursuant to the purported conviction of the crime of escape, he must be released from custody under such judgment. However, he is remanded to the custody of respondent pending appropriate disposition of the aforesaid charge of escape pending against him.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, Acting C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW 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)…1 were void for failure of compliance with § 932.38, 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 S…
-
Giles v. Cochran, 129 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1961)…id judgment. However, he is remanded to the custody of respondent pending appropriate disposition of the aforesaid charge of escape. See Kinard v. Cochran, Fla., 113 So. 2d 843; Raggen v. Cochran, Fla., 126 So. 2d 145, and Williams v. Cochran, Fla., 126 So. 2d 887. It is so ordered. THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, PIOB-SON, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Habich v. Cochran, 148 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1962)…enging his custody as being in violation of Sections 11 and 12, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, F.S. A., and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. To support this allegation Williams v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 126 So. 2d 887, is relied on. The return denies petitioner’s allegation that any responsible official of the State of Florida failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of § 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., relating to the notification of petitioner’s pare…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. David L. Wilson v. Culver, 110 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1959)
- Kinard v. Cochran, 113 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1959)
- Melton v. Culver, 107 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1958)
- Raggen v. Cochran, 126 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1961)