STATE, EX REL. E. H. PADGETT,
v.
G. A. WINDHAM, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY; STATE, EX REL FRED WALSTON, V. G. A. WINDHAM, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY; STATE, EX REL. D. F. SAXON, V. G. A. WINDHAM, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY; STATE, EX REL D. J. MAHONEY, V. G. A. WINDHAM, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY. (FOUR CASES CONSOLIDATED)
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.
Four consolidated habeas corpus petitions challenged the remand of prisoners to custody under informations charging lottery/gambling offenses. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the remands, holding that habeas corpus is not available to challenge defectively pleaded criminal charges that charge a public offense, even if the charges would be subject to demurrer or motion to quash at trial.
Habeas corpus is not a remedy for relief against imprisonment under a warrant or process that charges a criminal offense, even if the charge is defectively or inartificially stated or wholly insufficient as against a demurrer or motion to quash at trial. The informations in this case, though possibly defective, charged a public offense under the relevant statute and therefore did not warrant discharge on habeas corpus.
“in habeas corpus proceedings the Supreme Court will only inquire whether the complaint upon which the defendant is held, or has been convicted, charges a public offense, and will discharge persons in custody under criminal process only when it finds that to the charge attempted to be preferred, no criminality is attached by law.”
Establishes the fundamental standard for habeas corpus review—the court only inquires whether a public offense is charged, not the adequacy of pleading.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE.H. Padgett, D.J. Mahoney, D.F. Saxon, and Fred Walston were held in custody under informations filed by the County Solicitor of Dade County charging…
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.
The judgments remanding the prisoners in these several cases to the custody of the sheriff must be affirmed by the Court on the authority of the general rule' stated in Bell v. Gregory, 89 Fla. 293, 103 Sou. Rep. 832, wherein it was held that in habeas corpus proceedings the Supreme Court will only inquire whether the complaint upon which the defendant is held, or has been convicted,' charges a public offense, and will discharge persons in custody under criminal process only when it finds that to the charge attempted to be preferred, no criminality is attached-by law.
*208Habeas corpus is not a remedy for relief against imprisonment under a warrant or other process that charges a criminal offense defectively or inartificially, even where the criminal charge, as stated, is wholly insufficient as against a demurrer or motion to quash interposed at the trial. Lewis v. Nelson, 62 Fla. 71, 56 Sou. Rep. 435; Ex Parte Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 Sou. Rep. 659, 26 Am. St. Rep. 67; In re: Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 Sou. Rep. 604, L. R. A. 1918-B 1148; Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505, 82 Sou. Rep. 44; Spooner v. Curtis, 85 Fla. 408, 96 Sou. Rep. 836; Lehman v. Sawyer, 106 Fla. 396, 143 So. 310.
In the present case the informations upon which the plaintiffs in error were remanded to custody by the judgment of the court below, were substantially as follows:
“Chas. A. Morehead, County Solicitor for the County of Dade, prosecuting for the State of Florida, in the said County, under oath, information makes that E. H. Padgett, D. J. Mahoney, D. F. Saxon and Fred Walston of the County of Dade and State of Florida, on-the 7th day of December, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully and feloniously set up, promote and conduct a certain lottery for money, and other thing of value, by means of gambling and lottery devices, commonly known and designated as “Slot Machines,” and a further and more particular description of which is to the County Solicitor unknown, contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.”
It cannot be said that such information wholly fails to charge a crime against the laws of Florida under Section 7667 C. G. L., 5509 R. G. S., assuming (but not deciding) *209that such information is defective or insufficient as against a demurrer or motion to quash filed at the trial.
Appellate courts are properly reluctant to strike down on habeas corpus proceedings defectively or inartificially pleaded criminal charges that, if properly and timely attacked in the trial court, would be therein subject to correction by way of the filing of a new and amended information or indictment. The exceptional cases wherein this court has failed to strictly observe or enforce the above stated rule have been test cases wherein important points of law were presented to this court for decision on habeas corpus proceedings by mutual consent of the parties, or at least without objection by the State’s counsel to the form of proceedings adopted.*
Here the Attorney General has specifically raised the objection, and such objection having been properly submitted for our decision, we are impelled to sustain it on the authorities hereinbefore set forth.
Judgments affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kerfert Butler Adams v. Culver, 111 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1959)…inartific[i]ally pleaded criminal charges that, if properly and timely attacked in the trial court, would be therein subject to correction by way of the filing of a new and amended information or indictment.” State ex rel. Padgett v. Windham, 1935, 120 Fla. 206, 162 So. 501, 502. The charge was sufficiently elaborate to apprise the petitioner of “the nature and cause of the accusation against him,” § 11, Decl. of Rights, Fla.Const., -F.S.A., and to protect him from subsequent prosecution for the same offen…
-
State v. Coleman, 131 Fla. 892 (Fla. 1938)…ed. It has not by statute made the acts described in the indictment a crime in Florida. A writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy for relief against criminal process not charging a crime under the laws of Florida. See State, ex rel., v. Windham, 120 Fla. 206, 162 So. 501; Lewis v. Nelson, 62 Fla. 71, 56 So. 436; Ex Parte Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 So. 659, 26 Am. St. Rep. 67; In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 So. 604; Lehman v. Sawyer, 106 Fla. 296, 143 So. 310. The indictment in this case fails to charge a…
-
State v. Sullivan, 43 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1949)…against her will it is only necessary and indeed under our rule only proper, Carson's Common Law Pleading, Chap. XIV, Sec. 6, p. 185; Shelton v. Coleman, 136 Fla. 625, 187 So. 266; Lehman, Sheriff v. Sawyer, supra; State ex rel, Padgett v. Windham, 120 Fla. 206,162 So. 501, for us to decide the validity vel non of the indictment which charges the relator with murder in the first degree. The question of the constitutionality of Chapter 25554, Laws of Florida 1949, may or may not become an appropriate matter…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1919)
- In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068 (Fla. 1917)
- Ex-parte Charles D. Prince.-Habeas Corpus, 27 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1891)
- Lehman v. Sawyer, 106 Fla. 396 (Fla. 1932)
- Lewis v. Nero Nelson, 62 Fla. 71 (Fla. 1911)
- Martin v. Karel, 106 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1932)
- Kirk v. Angus Morrison, 108 Fla. 144 (Fla. 1933)
- Spooner v. Curtis, 85 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1923)
- Charley Bell v. Gregory, 89 Fla. 293 (Fla. 1925)