FRANK W. NEAL, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming a prior Florida conviction for forgery was obtained without counsel and was now extending his New Jersey imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court found the petition without merit because the petitioner had already served his Florida sentence and New Jersey authorities confirmed the prior conviction would not impede his parole consideration.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is without merit. The court found that the petitioner had already completed his Florida sentence, and the alleged harm of an extended New Jersey sentence was mitigated by confirmation from New Jersey authorities that the Florida conviction would not be an impediment to parole consideration.
“It is claimed that the petitioner was tried and sentenced without the assistance of counsel.”
States the petitioner's primary claim regarding the 1951 Florida conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank W. Neal petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging a 1951 Florida conviction for forgery was unconstitutional because he lacked counsel. H…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Frank W. Neal seeks relief against a conviction and sentence for the crime of forgery which sentence was entered on January 17, 1951. It is claimed that the petitioner was tried and sentenced without the assistance of counsel. He completed service of this Florida sentence long ago. Allegedly, the petitioner is now incarcerated in a New Jersey state prison for a subsequently committed offense. He claims that, because of the prior Florida conviction the New Jersey authorities consider him to be a second offender and, therefore, declined to give him an early consideration for parole and release from his current confinement. His point appears to be that, by virtue of the Florida Conviction, his New Jersey Imprisonment is being extended for a period beyond that which would otherwise obtain.
The respondent replies that it cannot produce the petitioner because he has long since been released from Florida custody. The records in the office of the Florida Parole Commission reveal a communication from New Jersey Bureau of Parole to the effect that the petitioner’s earlier \conviction in Florida would not be an impediment to parole consideration and release from the State of New Jersey. According to this communication, the petitioner was scheduled for parole consideration in that state during the month of December 1965.
In view of the foregoing, the petition is found to be without merit and the writ is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.