ROBERT RADCLIFF, 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.
Robert Radcliff petitioned for habeas corpus after pleading guilty to accessory after the fact, a charge not contained in the original information alleging breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. The Florida Supreme Court found that accessory after the fact is not a lesser included offense of the original charge, making the plea improper, and ordered remand for further proceedings consistent with due process.
The trial court improperly accepted Radcliff's plea to accessory after the fact because that offense is not a lesser included offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, and the plea was not authorized by the original information or a separate information. Consequently, Radcliff was illegally restrained and must be remanded for further proceedings.
“The trial court accepted a plea of guilty to the crime of accessory after the fact although this was not a separate count in the original information, nor was it charged by separate information.”
Establishes the core problem: the plea was accepted to a charge not properly presented
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRadcliff was charged by information on December 9, 1959 with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He was arraigned and pleaded n…
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 Due Process Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
This Court heretofore issued its writ of habeas corpus upon the petition of Robert Radcliff. The respondent, H. G. Cochran, Jr., Director, Division of Corrections, has filed his return and amended return thereto and the cause is before us for determination.
Petitioner was charged with the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor by information filed December 9, 1959. He was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to that charge. The trial court accepted a plea of guilty to the crime of accessory after the fact although this was not a separate count in the original information, nor was it charged by separate information. Petitioner was sentenced to the State Prison for a term of five years.
The respondent in his amended return states:
“Respondent respectfully requests that this Court not consider any portions of respondent’s original return wherein by any allegation or denial he may have concluded that petitioner could lawfully enter a plea to the offense of ‘accessory after the fact’ when exclusively charged by information with the offense of ‘breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor’.
“So much of respondent’s original return as may have suggested that the offense of ‘accessory after the fact’ is a lesser and included offense of the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor is withdrawn. Subsequent research has revealed that such is not the case.
“As a necessary consequence it follows that so much of petitioner’s allega-, tions as may have been equated with a claim that his plea of guilty was, *132because of the aforesaid, illegally accepted by the trial court, are admitted by your respondent in this amended return.
“Wherefore, your respondent respectfully requests the Court that should it find petitioner is illegally restrained and must therefore be released from custody under the present judgment, that petitioner be remanded to the custody of respondent for further disposition of the cause pending against him whether it be as principal to the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor or as an accessory after the fact to said offense.”
The petitioner is ordered remanded for further proceedings in accordance with due process of law.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ-, concur.