JOE BROCKMAN, 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 actual notice to the mother of the juvenile's charges obviated the need for statutory notice, thus the habeas corpus writ was improperly issued.
A habeas corpus petition was filed on behalf of a 16-year-old, alleging his mother was not notified of the charges against him as required by statute.…
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 Statutory Notice Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
This Court heretofore issued its writ of habeas corpus upon the petition in behalf of Joe Brockman, filed by his mother. In such petition it was alleged that Brockman, while only 16 years of age, was sentenced for the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime. It was further alleged that the provisions of F.S. Sec. 932.38, F.S.A. were not complied with in that the mother was not given notice of such charge against her son. The mother further alleged that her son was not and had never been married.
Respondent has now filed his return to the writ and from such return it is ascertained that proceedings against petitioner were commenced in the Juvenile Court for St. Johns County. A hearing was conducted therein in the presence of petitioner’s mother and the juvenile court entered an order of transferral to the circuit court on a charge of felony. Thus, it appears that petitioner was properly treated as a juvenile under the provisions of Chapter 39, F.S.A.
It is also shown by the respondent’s return with its exhibits that upon arraignment petitioner plead guilty to the information against him and that upon such arraignment his mother was present in the courtroom.
Hence, it is apparent that petitioner’s mother had actual notice of the charge against him prior to his arraignment. Consequently, it was unnecessary to notify her of the charge by service of notice or by registered mail as provided by the statute,. Sec. 932.38, F.S.A. Bowen v. Cochran, Fla. 1960, 121 So.2d 154.
The writ heretofore issued is hereby quashed and the petitioner remanded to the-custody of the respondent.
THOMAS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL,. JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doll Holloway v. State, 216 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…d 804; Bran-son v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 138 So. 2d 316; Milligan v. State, 1933, 109 Fla. 219, 147 So. 260 (a death penalty case); Craig v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 132 So. 2d 196; DiMarco v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 127 So. 2d 674; Brockman v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 127 So. 2d 443; Johnson v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 124 So. 2d 488; Bowen v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 121 So. 2d 154; Clay v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 204, 196 So. 462; James v. State, 1927, 92 Fla. 999, 111 So. 277; Pitts v. State, 1924, 88 Fla. 438, 102 So. 554. The record he…
-
Lawrence v. State, 198 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…be without merit. See Clay v. State, 143 Fla. 204, 196 So. 462 (1940); Morgan v. State, 113 Fla. 372, 151 So. 697 (1933); Pitts v. State, 88 Fla. 438, 102 So. 554 (1924); McEwen v. Wainwright, Fla.1962, 147 So. 2d 317; Brockman v. Cockran, Fla.1961, 127 So. 2d 443; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So. 2d 38; Wooten v. State, Fla. App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305. No reversible error having been made to appear, the order appealed is affirmed. Affirmed.…