WALTER FRANKLIN BRANSON, 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.
Walter Franklin Branson, a minor at the time of his murder trial, petitioned for habeas corpus claiming his parents were not notified of charges as required by Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that his mother had been adequately notified by registered mail and had attended his trial.
The minimum requirements of § 932.38 were adequately met. The mother received official notice by registered mail, was present at trial, and had visited her son multiple times before trial. Branson's claim that his parents were not notified was without merit.
“petitioner was arrested on July 1, 1957 on a charge of premeditated murder. The parents had been divorced since 1943 and the petitioner, as a child, had been abandoned by the father, thereby leaving the mother as the only parent to assume any responsibility for the child.”
Establishes the factual background showing the mother's sole parental status and responsibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBranson was arrested on July 1, 1957 for premeditated murder. His parents were divorced since 1943, and his mother was the only parent assuming respon…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
Walter Franklin Branson petitioned this court for a writ of habeas coprus, alleging that he is illegally confined because, although he was an unmarried minor according to Florida law, at the time of his trial upon a charge of murder his parents were not notified of the charges pending against him prior to said trial, as required by § 932.38, F.S.A.
We issued the writ and the respondent has now filed his return, together with numerous exhibits, including the sworn statement of petitioner’s mother. The return and the aforementioned exhibits show that petitioner was arrested on July 1, 1957 on a charge of premeditated murder. The parents had been divorced since 1943 and the petitioner, as a child, had been abandoned by the father, thereby leaving the mother as the only parent to assume any responsibility for the child. On July 2nd, 1957, as the result of a newspaper article, his mother visited him at the county jail. She continued to visit the petitioner upon repeated occasions between July 2, 1957 and October 21, 1957, the date of the petitioner’s trial. On September 19, 1957, official notice of the charge against the petitioner and the date of his trial were mailed to the petitioner’s mother by registered mail. Further, it is clear that the petitioner’s mother was present in the circuit court room on October 21, 1957 when the petitioner, who was represented by counsel, withdrew his plea of not guilty to the charge of murder in the first degree and plead guilty to having committed the offense of murder in the second degree. The estranged father was living in St. Augustine, Florida at the time, and the information was passed to him by the mother. The father offered no assistance.
From the foregoing facts, it is obvious that the minimum requirements of § 932.38, F.S.A., were more than adequately met with reference to the petitioner and that the petitioner’s statement, that his parents were not notified, has proved to be a falsehood.
*317The writ of habeas corpus heretofore issued is hereby discharged and the petitioner is remanded to the custody of the respondent.
DREW, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and HOBSON (retired), 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)…or consultation and advice with the individuals, who, society must assume, are those most vitally concerned with the minor’s best interests.” See also to the same effect Falagon v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 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…
-
McINTOSH v. State, 274 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…idence that Fanny M. Johnson was listed by the petitioner with the Department of Corrections as his “notification relative.” The Court held that a failure to notify Johnson’s grandmother was no ground for habeas corpus. Branson v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 138 So. 2d 316, was a case in which petitioner’s allegation was found to be false. The record showed that .he had been abandoned by his father as a child and that his mother visited the jail repeatedly over a period of three and one-half months before trial. Craig…