JAMES WALLACE
v.
L. F. CHAPMAN, AS SUPERINTENDENT, STATE PRISON
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 held that a conditional commutation can only be revoked upon an affirmative finding that the prisoner violated the specific conditions, not merely upon allegations or charges of misconduct. The Board of Pardons improperly revoked Wallace's commutation based on charges rather than proven violations.
The Court held that revocation of a conditional commutation requires an affirmative finding by the Board of Pardons or a court of competent jurisdiction that the prisoner actually violated the conditions, not merely charges or allegations of conduct that would constitute a breach if proven. The Board's order should be quashed and the petitioner discharged.
“There appears to have been no affirmative finding of the State Board of Pardons or of a court of competent jurisdiction, that the Petitioner had violated either of the conditions named in the order of commutation.”
Establishes the core requirement that actual violation must be found, not merely alleged
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Wallace received a conditional commutation of his sentence from the State Board of Pardons, conditioned on maintaining good behavior and followi…
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 law applicable to this case was stated by us in the case of Stone v. Burch, 114 Fla. 460, 154 Sou. 128.
The conditional commutation of the petitioner, Wallace, was in the same language as that which was used in the order conditionally commuting the sentence of Burch. The condition in both cas'es was:
“It is thereupon considered, ordered and decreed by said Board that the following commutations of sentences be granted and allowed upon condition that the several persons to whom the same are severally awarded shall hereafter live a law-abiding and peaceful life, and shall during the remainder of the terms of imprisonment to be served conduct themselves' strictly in conformity' to all rules and regu*68lations of their prisons and faithfully keep and observe all the lawful orders of the keepers having them in charge, in default or violation of which, the Board reserves the right to itself without notice or hearing, to revoke the commutations hereby granted and to cause the said convicted persons to serve the full terms of imprisonment for which they severally stand committed, all of which shall be deemed accepted and agreed to by the several convicted persons upon their release hereunder.”
The Order of Revocation' is as follows:
“Whereas, it was provided in said commutation of sentence and the same was granted to and accepted by the said James Wallace upon the express understanding and condition that the said conditional commutation of sentence' was to be effective during good behavior or until otherwise ordered by the Board; and
"Whereas, The Board has been notified that- the conduct of the said James' Wallace has not been in accord with the provisions of the said commutation of sentence; that he is now in Wakulla County Jail for the offense of Resisting an Officer, and that he has threatened the lives of several persons in said County; and
"Whereas, the State Board of Pardons' is satisfied from the above representation that the conditional commutation of sentence heretofore granted to the said James Wallace should be withdrawn, and does hereby order that the said James Wallace be made to serve such portion of his original sentence as had not been served by' him at the time of the granting of his conditional commutation of sentence.”
The commutation was not granted on condition that “the said conditional commutation of sentence was to be effective during good behavior or until otherwise ordered by the Board,” but was oh the condition above quoted.
*69There appears to have been no affirmative finding of the State Board of Pardons or of a court of competent jurisdiction, that the Petitioner had violated either of the conditions named in the order of commutation. At most it is only adjudged that the convict had been charged with the commission of acts or conduct which charges if sustained by. proof would show a breach of the conditions of the commutation. This was not sufficient to show a determination by the Board of Pardons or an adjudication that there had indeed and in fact been a breach of the stated conditions by the convict. So it is, the return should be quashed and the Petitioner discharged.
So ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J.,' concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 156 Fla. 507 (Fla. 1945)…the special body created by Section 12 of Article IV of our Constitution. Considerable light is thrown upon the questions above discussed by the opinions and decisions of this Court in Stone v. Burch, 114 Fla. 460, 154 So. 128; Wallace v. Chapman, 130 Fla. 67, 177 So. 228 and State v. Horne, 52 Fla. 125, 42 So. 388. Respectfully, ROY H. CHAPMAN Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida. GLENN TERRELL ARMSTEAD BROWN RIVERS BUFORD ELWYN THOMAS - ALTO ADAMS H. L. SEBRING ' Justices of the Supr…
-
Early Walker v. Honorable Nathan Mayo, 156 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1945)…y to a different conclusion. An answer to each question raised has been adversely decided by this Court in the case of State v. Horne, 52 Fla. 125, 42 So. 388, 7 L. R. A. (N.S.) 719. See Stone v. Burch, 114 Fla. 460, 154 So. 128; Wallace v. Chapman, 130 Fla. 67, 177 So. 228. The return, as made by the Honorable Nathan Mayo, State Prison Custodian, to the writ of habeas corpus previously issued, is in all respects sustained and the writ so issued is quashed and the petitioner is remanded to custody to serv…
Authorities Cited
- Stone v. Burch, 114 Fla. 460 (Fla. 1934)