DONALD ROBERT MCEWEN, 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.
Donald Robert McEwen, a minor at the time of his trial, sought habeas corpus relief challenging his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, alleging that his parents were not notified of the charge and trial date as required by Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court denied relief, finding that the State Attorney had properly notified McEwen's mother by registered mail with proof of delivery.
The State complied with the statutory notification requirement because the State Attorney properly sent notice to petitioner's mother by registered mail and received a return receipt confirming delivery, thereby satisfying § 932.38, Florida Statutes.
“that petitioner was a minor on the date he was tried and that his parents were not notified of the charge against him or the date of his trial as required by § 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.”
States the core allegation petitioner relied upon for habeas corpus relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcEwen was tried and convicted on October 10, 1960, in the Circuit Court of Alachua County for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemean…
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 Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
The material allegations of the petition, in response to which writ of habeas corpus was issued and return required, allege that petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor; that petitioner was a minor on the date he was tried and that his parents were not notified of the charge against him or the date of his trial as required by § 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Petitioner alleges that he has never been married.
The return to the writ of habeas corpus admits that on October 5, 1960, petitioner was informed against by the State Attorney of the Eighth Judicial Circuit for the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to which petitioner entered a plea of guilty. Respondent further admits that on October 10, 1960, petitioner was adjudged guilty by the Circuit Court of Alachua County of the crime for which he was tried and sentenced to the state prison for four years and ten months.
Respondent admits that on the date of trial and sentencing petitioner was a minor, as is more fully shown by Exhibits 1 and 2 attached to the return hut respondent denies that petitioner’s mother was not notified that the petitioner had been informed against and that the provisions of § 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., requiring such notice, were not complied with. The return shows that notice of the charge against petitioner and the date of his trial were seasonably sent to petitioner’s mother by Honorable T. E. Duncan, State Attorney of the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida, including Alachua County, by registered mail. The State Attorney in due course received a return receipt indicating delivery of the notification to petitioner’s mother. All of which is more fully shown by affidavit of the State Attorney and photostatic copies of the notification sent to petitioner’s mother and return receipt attached thereto as Exhibits 4, 5 and 6, and made part of the return, all of which show compliance with § 932.38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
It follows that the allegations relied on by petitioner are devoid of merit and have no foundation in fact. In consideration of which the writ of habeas corpus heretofore entered in this cause is discharged and the petitioner is remanded to the custody of respondent.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawrence v. State, 198 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…contentions of the defendant and find them to be without merit. See Clay v. State, 143 Fla. 204, 196 So. 462 (1940); Morgan v. State, 113 Fla. 372, 151 So. 697 (1933); Pitts v. State, 88 Fla. 438, 102 So. 554 (1924); McEwen v. Wainwright, Fla.1962, 147 So. 2d 317; Brockman v. Cockran, Fla.1961, 127 So. 2d 443; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So. 2d 38; Wooten v. State, Fla. App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305. No reversible error having been made to appear, the order appealed is affirmed. Affirmed.…