MILTON ARNOLD, 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, following a mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court, found that a habeas corpus petition, if proven, alleged grounds for post-conviction relief. The court declined to issue the writ but allowed the petitioner to proceed under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1.
Yes, the petition, if proven, alleges grounds for post-conviction relief. However, the court declined to issue the writ of habeas corpus directly.
“Pursuant to the directions of that court it is now found that the petition, if proved, alleges grounds for post-conviction relief.”
Establishes the U.S. Supreme Court's finding that the petition stated grounds for relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Milton Arnold sought a writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously remanded the case, finding that Arnold's petition, if p…
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 Florida Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter recurs for consideration upon the judgment and mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, Arnold v. Director, Florida Division of Corrections, 372 U.S. 769, 83 S.Ct. 1107, 10 L.Ed.2d 140. Pursuant to the directions of that court it is now found that the petition, if proved, alleges grounds for post-conviction relief. In order to expedite the disposition of the matter, we decline to issue a writ of habeas corpus, but expressly without prejudice to the petitioner to proceed *693under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, 31 F.S.A. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, and on remand, Gideon v. Wainwright, (Fla.) 153 So.2d 299, opinion filed May 15, 1963.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, DREW, THORNAL, O’CON-NELL and HOBSON (Retired), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)
- Gideon v. Louie L. Wainwright, 153 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1963)
- Tiller v. California, 372 U.S. 771 (U.S. 1963)
- Watt v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 769 (U.S. 1963)
- Arnold v. Director, Florida Division of Corrections, 372 U.S. 769 (U.S. 1963)