THOMAS E. WATKINS, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN MORRIS, WARDEN, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY-PRISON CAMP, 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.
Watkins seeks habeas corpus release from prison after being convicted in traffic court of driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, and leaving the scene of an accident with injury. The Florida Supreme Court holds that while the traffic court lacked jurisdiction over the felony charge, the concurrent misdemeanor sentences are valid and Watkins is not entitled to release.
The Traffic Court lacked jurisdiction to try Watkins for the felony offense of leaving the scene of an accident with injury, but it did have jurisdiction over the two misdemeanor charges. Because the judge did not specify that sentences would run consecutively, they run concurrently under statutory analogy. Even though one concurrent sentence (the invalid felony sentence) is void, the other misdemeanor sentence is valid and Watkins is not entitled to release.
“The Traffic Court simply had no jurisdiction to try the man for the felony punished by Section 317.071(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.”
Establishes that the traffic court exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to try a felony charge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatkins was charged in Hillsborough County Traffic Court with three counts: driving while intoxicated (misdemeanor), reckless driving (misdemeanor), a…
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 Felony Vs. Misdemeanor Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of habeas corpus Watkins seeks release from the Hills-borough County Prison.
By an affidavit complaint filed in the-Hillsborough County Traffic Court, Watkins was charged in three counts with the offenses of:
(1) Driving while intoxicated, condemned by Section 317.201, Florida. Statutes, F.S.A.
(2) Reckless driving, condemned by Section 317.211, Florida Statutes,. F.S.A.
(3) Leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury, condemned by Section 317.071, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
The Traffic Court was created by Chapter 27104, Laws of Florida, 1951, as amended by Chapter 61-1034, Laws of Florida, 1961. Its jurisdiction is limited to traffic violations which constitute misdemeanors. The offense proscribed by Section 317.071, supra, is a felony. The other two offenses are misdemeanors.
*349Under Count (1) above the defendant was sentenced to a fine of $500.00 or 6 months in jail. Sentence was deferred on Count (2)-. On Count (3) he was sentenced to a fine of $500.00 or 6 months in jail. He evidently did not pay the fines because he is in j ail and wants out.
Ordinarily we would deny the petition because the defendant Watkins failed .to appeal. Habeas corpus will not be employed as a substitute for appeal. Here, however, after the appeal period had expired, Section 11, Chapter 27104, supra, the defendant attacks his conviction and incarceration on jurisdictional grounds.
If petitioner’s present confinement depended upon the validity of the felony conviction, he would be entitled to release because that conviction clearly could not stand. The Traffic Court simply had no jurisdiction to try the man for the felony punished by Section 317.071(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
However, it did have jurisdiction to try him for the misdemeanors. The judge did not specifically prescribe that the sentences would run consecutively. Hence, we hold that they run concurrently. There is no statute such as Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to govern sentences for offenses charged in an affidavit-complaint, as distinguished from an information or indictment. Under Section 921.16, supra, when two or more offenses are charged in the same information or indictment, terms of imprisonment run concurrently unless expressly directed to run consecutively.
By analogy we treat the complaint here the same as if it were an information. By statutory analogy we apply the rule of Section 921.16, supra, to the instant complaint and sentences. Hence, even though one concurrent sentence is void, the other is valid and the petitioner is not entitled to release.
Petitioner also claims lack of assistance of counsel at his trial. We do not overlook Harvey v. State of Mississippi, 5 Cir., 340 F.2d 263. However, until authoritatively determined to the contrary by the Supreme Court of the United States,, the rule in Florida is that there is no absolute, organic right to counsel in misdemeanor trials. Fish v. State, Fla., 159 So.2d 866. Moreover, the petitioner does not claim indigency or inability to have supplied his own counsel.
The petitioner not being entitled to release, the writ is discharged and he is remanded to custody.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Jon Richard Argersinger v. Hamlin, 236 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1970)…ROBERTS, Justice. We have taken original jurisdiction of this habeas corpus proceeding to reexamine our previous decisions in Fish v. State, Fla.1964, 159 So. 2d 866, Watkins v. Morris, Fla. 1965, 179 So. 2d 348, and State ex rel. Taylor v. Warden, Fla.1967, 193 So. 2d 606, holding that an indigent defendant is not entitled to court-appointed counsel when accused only of a misdemeanor. It is noteworthy that, since our decision in Fish, the United States Sup…
-
Sclafani v. Cnty. OF Dade, 323 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…urt intended to and did try him for the felony of leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury. The county court did not have jurisdiction to try Sclafani or to sentence him pursuant to § 316.027, Fla.Stat. Watkins v. Morris, Fla.1965, 179 So. 2d 348. There is no question, however, that it did have jurisdiction to find him guilty and sentence him to 10 days each for two careless driving charges and 10 days for leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage. The writ of certiorari is…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Jesse Lee Taylor v. Warden OF Orange Cnty. Prison Farm, 193 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1967)…the principles announced in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, should be applied in cases of the seriousness of this case, despite our prior holdings in Fish v. State, Fla., 159 So. 2d 866, and Watkins v. Morris, Fla., 179 So. 2d 348. When in any court in this state, whether state, county or municipal, a criminal case arises and the penalty prescribed in the event of conviction authorizes a sentence of confinement of 30 days or more, either initially or upon failure to pay a mon…
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
- Harvey v. State OF Miss., 340 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Fish v. State, 159 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1964)