JACK CLAYTON GILES, 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 granted a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who alleged his parents were not notified of his trial for escape, as required by statute for minors. The court found his imprisonment illegal due to this procedural defect.
Yes, the State's failure to comply with the statutory requirement to notify the parents or guardian of an unmarried minor of his trial for escape rendered his imprisonment illegal.
“By petition for writ of habeas corpus, Giles alleges that when he was tried and sentenced to a term of two years in the State prison for the crime of escape he was an unmarried minor and that the State failed to comply with the provision of Section 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., regarding the notification of his parents or guardian.”
This quote outlines the core allegation made by the petitioner in his habeas corpus petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Jack Clayton Giles, an unmarried minor at the time of his trial for escape, alleged that the State failed to notify his parents or guardian…
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.
By petition for writ of habeas corpus, Giles alleges that when he was tried and sentenced to a term of two years in the State prison for the crime of escape he was an unmarried minor and that the State failed to comply with the provision of Section 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., regarding the notification of his parents or guardian. We issued the writ. The return of the respondent admits the essential allegations of the petition. We are, therefore, compelled to conclude that the petitioner is being illegally restrained of his liberty under the purported conviction of the crime of escape. Pie must be released from custody under said 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. Lewis Roberts v. Cochran, 140 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1962)…is parents were not notified of the accusation against him and the subsequent trial as required by Section 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. It is-asserted that the Polk County convictions, were, therefore, invalidly obtained, Giles v. Cochran (Fla.) 129 So. 2d 426, and consequently could furnish no valid basis for the revocation of probation by the Judge of the Criminal Court of Orange County. The State does not dispute the fact that Roberts was an unmarried minor when he was convicted in Polk County. Further…
-
Michell v. State of Fla. ex rel. John Thomas Callahan, Jr., 154 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…ner was sentenced to one year in the county jail1 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…
-
Keene v. Cochran, 146 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1962)…ces of breaking and entering to commit grand larceny and larceny of a 1956 Chevrolet automobile; however, petitioner is remanded to the custody of respondent pending appropriate disposition of the aforesaid charges. See Giles v. Cochran, 1961, Fla., 129 So. 2d 426, and cases cited therein. It must be noted that respondent’s return also shows that on April 23, 1960, petitioner plead guilty in the Jackson County Circuit Court to larceny of a I960- two-ton Chevrolet truck. Upon his conviction petitioner was sen…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kinard v. Cochran, 113 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1959)
- Norton Doyle Williams v. Cochran, 126 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1961)
- Raggen v. Cochran, 126 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1961)