CURTIS JAMES WARD, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court discharged a writ of habeas corpus, denying a prisoner's request for release. The court found that the prisoner's attorney was properly notified of the denial of a motion to vacate sentence, and the prisoner himself was aware of the appeal period, yet no appeal was filed.
The Petitioner is not entitled to release on habeas corpus. The court found that proper notice was given regarding the denial of the motion to vacate sentence, and the Petitioner failed to file an appeal within the allotted time.
“This cause is before us on petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of Petitioner, who is presently serving a life sentence for murder in the first degree imposed April 17, 1959, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida for Palm Beach County.”
Establishes the nature of the case and the petitioner's current status.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Curtis James Ward is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder. He sought release via a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his motio…
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of Petitioner, who is presently serving a life sentence for murder in the first degree imposed April 17, 1959, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida for Palm Beach County. We issued the writ and have considered the return of the Attorney General for the State. The State’s response to the Order to Show Cause indicates that Petitioner’s attorney was given timely notice of the order denying Petitioner’s motion to vacate sentence in Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix proceedings. It also appears that Petitioner and his mother were aware that the time for appeal by Petitioner of the order denying Petitioner’s motion to vacate sentence was running but no appeal was filed by Petitioner during the time allowed for appeal either directly or through counsel.
Accordingly, the writ of habeas corpus is discharged.
THOMAS, Acting C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.