EUGENE TYNDALL, 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 discharged a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's claims were not supported by the facts presented. The case was referred to a circuit court judge for factual findings, which ultimately led to the denial of the petition.
No, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not supported by the facts.
“It has been conclusively established that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is not supported by the facts.”
This quote directly states the court's conclusion regarding the factual basis of the petitioner's claims.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEugene Tyndall petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. A dispute arose regarding factual matters, prompting the Florida Supreme Court to refer the cas…
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
Upon the petition of Eugene Tyndall this Court issued its writ of habeas corpus and *813the respondent filed a return thereto which revealed there existed a dispute as to factual matters. Accordingly, the cause was referred to Honorable Gunter Stephenson, one of the judges of the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit, to take such testimony as he should deem necessary, making findings thereon, and report such to this Court. Tyndall v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 489.
The findings of the Commissioner have been filed with this Court, accompanied by a transcript of the hearing which he conducted.
It has been conclusively established that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is not supported by the facts.
Accordingly, the writ of habeas corpus heretofore issued should be discharged and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the respondent.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, TJ., concur.