STATE, EX REL. ALBERT R. HOUSE,
v.
NATHAN MAYO, AS STATE PRISON CUSTODIAN, AND L. F. CHAPMAN, STATE PRISON SUPERINTENDENT
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.
Albert R. House sought habeas corpus relief from his imprisonment based on multiple sentences imposed without formal adjudication of guilt. The Florida Supreme Court granted the writ and remanded him for resentencing, holding that sentences cannot be imposed without a proper judgment adjudicating the defendant's guilt.
A sentence imposed without any definite adjudication of guilt is invalid, and the defendant must be remanded to the proper court for resentencing after entry of a judgment adjudicating guilt. The court granted the writ of habeas corpus and remanded House for proper resentencing proceedings.
“There was no adjudication of guilt. Therefore, there was no judgment entered upon the plea in the one case or the verdict of juries in the other cases.”
Identifies the fundamental defect: absence of formal adjudication of guilt before sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHouse pleaded guilty to possession of burglarious tools and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. He was subsequently convicted of burglary (10 year…
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 Adjudication Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case Albert R. House was granted a writ of habeas corpus.
Return has been made and the record shows that the petitioner in Hillsborough County, Florida, on September 11, *241925, pleaded guilty to an information charging possession of burglarious tools and was sentenced to imprisonment in State Prison for a term of twenty years for that offense; that he was convicted of burglary and was sentenced to a term of ten years, to begin at the expiration of the first sentence; that he was convicted of burglary and grand larceny and receiving stolen property and was sentenced to State Prison for a term of twenty years, to begin and run from the expiration of the second sentence; that he was convicted of robbery and was sentenced to State Prison .for a term of twenty years to begin at the expiration of the third sentence. In each instance the judgment and sentence was: “It is the judgment of the court and the sentence of the law that you, Albert House, be taken by the Sheriff, or his lawful deputy, to the State Prison of the State of Florida and be delivered to the principal keeper thereof, there to be confined in said State Prison at hard labor for a period,” etc.
There was no adjudication of guilt. Therefore, there was no judgment entered upon the plea in the one case or the verdict of juries in the other cases.
It, therefore, follows that there is no judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction upon which the sentences imposed, or either of them, could be based.
This case is not on all-fours with the case of Ex Parte Simmons, 73 Fla. 998, 75 Sou. 542, although it is in some respects analogous to that case. This is more like the case of State, ex rel. Cromwell, v. Brown, 98 Fla. 181, 123 Sou. 571. The case is ruled, however, by the opinion and judgment in the case of Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54, 146 Sou. 675, in which we said:
“Where sentence was imposed without any definite adjudication of petitioner’s guilt, and he is being incarcerated *25in State Prison, court should remand petitioner to court for proper resentence after entry of judgment adjudicating petitioner’s guilt.”
It, therefore, follows that the petitioner must be remanded to the custody of the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Florida, with directions that petitioner be delivered to the Sheriff of Hillsborough County to be taken before the Criminal Court of Record for a proper sentence, if any should be imposed.
It is so ordered.
Petitioner remanded with directions.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Davis, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corn v. State, 332 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1976)…d 641 (Fla.1968). . Burns v. State, 97 Fla. 232, 120 So. 360 (1929); Kuhn v. State, 98 Fla. 206, 123 So. 755 (1929); Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 So. 106 (1930); Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54, 146 So. 675 (1933); State ex rel. House v. Mayo, 122 Fla. 23, 164 So. 673 (1935); Finch v. Mayo, 137 Fla. 762, 189 So. 27 (1939); and Hart v. State, 60 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1952). Rule 3.650, Florida Criminal Rules of Procedure. . Hart v. State, 60 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1952).…1 / 2
-
Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1939)…Fla. 726, 88 Sou. Rep. 762; Cooper v. State, 83 Fla. 34, 90 Sou. Rep. 693; Brooke v. State, 99 Fla. 1275, 128 Sou. Rep. 814, 69 A. L. R. 1173; Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 Sou. Rep. 106, 69 A. L. R. 783; State ex rel. House v. Mayo, 122 Fla. 23, 164 Sou. Rep. 673. For the above reasons the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the lower court for the pronouncement of a proper judgment and sentence. Reversed. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur. Terrell, C. J., concurs in opini…
-
House v. State, 127 Fla. 145 (Fla. 1937)…y imposed in cases charging the defendant with felonies, the sentences to be served consecutively and not concurrently. The' defendant- was committed to the State Penitentiary under the above sentence. See State, ex rel. House, v. Mayo, 122 Fla. 23, 164 So. 673. When the petitioner,' Albert R. House, was taken before the trial court for a proper sentence' under the remanding order of this Court in the habeas corpus proceeding, counsel for Albert R. House presented to the trial court a motion “to discharge…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1933)
- Ex parte Simmons, 75 So. 542 (Fla. 1917)
- State of Fla. ex rel. W. A. Cromwell v. Brown, 98 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1929)