STANLEY HOWARD PETERSON, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, 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.
Peterson sought habeas corpus release from prison, challenging the validity of his conviction judgment. The Florida Supreme Court found the judgment ambiguous because it convicted him of "breaking and entering," a non-statutory offense, when he had pled guilty to the statutory crime of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny. The Court remanded for resentencing before the trial judge rather than ordering his release.
The judgment is ambiguous and invalid in its current form because it does not correspond to the statutory offense charged in the information, but Peterson is not entitled to be released from custody. Instead, the case is remanded for the trial judge to issue a proper judgment and sentence reflecting the statutory crime to which Peterson pled guilty.
“The judgment and sentence are vague and ambiguous and should be corrected.”
The Court's determination that while the judgment contains defects, they are correctable through remand rather than grounds for release.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeterson was charged by information with unlawfully and feloniously breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny. He ple…
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 Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner Peterson seeks release from the State Prison under a writ of habeas corpus.
The principal point for consideration is the validity of the judgment of conviction.
Peterson was tried on an information charging that he “did unlawfully and feloniously break and enter a dwelling house, the property of G. F. Siegel, with intent to commit a felony therein, to wit: grand larceny.” He pled guilty to the offense charged in the information. However, the judgment and sentence recites that he “entered a plea of guilty to the offense of breaking and entering.” The trial judge adjudged him guilty of that offense. By his petition Peterson contends that the judgment was invalid because it found him guilty of a non-existing offense, there being no such crime as “breaking and entering.” By his return the respondent concedes that the judgment is ambiguous and should be corrected.
We agree that the judgment and sentence are ambiguous. However, the judgment is not so completely devoid of validity as to require that the petitioner be discharged from custody.
The offense charged in the information is one condemned by statute. Sec. 810.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The allegations were sufficiently clear to advise the accused of the exact crime with which he was charged.
The record is also clear that he not only pled guilty to the commission of the crime charged in the information but he also reaffirmed his guilt when he was admitted to the State prison.
The judgment and sentence should, of course, follow the information regarding the specific crime charged. Thornton v. Culver, Fla., 105 So.2d 489. In this instance the judgment and sentence are vague and ambiguous and should be corrected. Lewis v. Mayo, 127 Fla. 488, 173 So. 346. The petitioner is not thereby entitled to be released from custody. D’Alessandro v. Tippins, 98 Fla. 853, 124 So. 455 However, he should be returned before the *858trial judge for a proper adjudication and sentence.
We have examined the other grounds asserted by the petitioner to support his claim to release from prison. We find that they are without merit.
The petitioner is remanded to the custody of the respondent with directions that he be presented to the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County at its next regular or special term, to receive a proper judgment. Lewis v. Mayo, supra. When this has been accomplished the writ shall stand discharged.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peterson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 155 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1963)…PER CURIAM. Pursuant to Peterson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus we issued the writ but remanded the petitioner for a proper sentence. Peterson v. Wainwright, Fla., 145 So. 2d 857. In accord with our mandate the petitioner was taken before the trial judge and a corrected sentence was prescribed on November 9, 1962. Under our original judgment the writ stood discharged when the corrected sentence was entered. Apparently, being…
-
Peterson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 157 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1963)…recommendation of this Commissioner that the judgment of conviction, and the sentence entered thereon, be vacated, and Petitioner be remanded for a new trial on the charge upon which the judgment and sentence was based.” In Peterson v. Wainwright, 145 So. 2d 857, this Court vacated and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence of January 9, 1961 because such judgment and sentence was vague and ambiguous and failed to follow the information regarding the specific crime charged. Our judgment in that c…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- D'Alessandro v. Tippins, 98 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1929)
- Lewis v. The Honorable Nathan Mayo, 127 Fla. 488 (Fla. 1937)
- Cali v. State, 127 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1937)
- Roscoe Jackson v. Culver, 105 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1958)
- Broxton B. Thornton v. Culver, 105 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1958)