THOMAS LOUIS BREAMFIELD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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, finding that the petitioner was attempting to re-litigate a previously denied challenge to a 1954 conviction and sentence. The court noted that the petitioner was currently serving a different, longer sentence and that the prior conviction had already been reviewed and upheld on appeal.
No, a petitioner cannot use habeas corpus to re-litigate a previously denied challenge to a conviction and sentence that has already been reviewed and affirmed on appeal.
“Petitioner does not question the sentence he is now serving and is not entitled on habeas corpus to again attack the validity of the sentence for robbery imposed on February 23, 1954 which was reviewed and approved by the Third District Court of Appeal, supra.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning that the petitioner's current challenge was improper because he was not attacking his current sentence and the prior sentence had already been litigated.
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a 1954 conviction and sentence for robbery. This challenge had previously been denied by th…
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 Parole Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on petition for writ of habeas corpus attacking petitioner’s conviction and sentence to ten years for robbery imposed on February 23, 1954, by the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County. Petition for relief from such conviction and resulting ten-year sentence was filed under Criminal Procedure Rule One, F.S. Chapter 924 Appendix, and considered at a hearing conducted by the trial judge at which petitioner was represented by counsel. Upon denial appeal was perfected to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, which found it frivolous and granted the State’s Motion to Quash with opinion dated July 28, 1964 and reported at 166 So.2d 484. We issued the writ and have considered the return of the Attorney General.
It now appears that petitioner is presently serving a sentence of twenty years for robbery, imposed on September 24, 1958, by the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County. Petitioner had been granted a parole for the 1954 conviction but upon his failure to live and remain at liberty without violating the law, the Florida Parole Commission revoked his parole on October 20, 1958 to become effective upon the expiration of the sentence petitioner is presently serving.
Petitioner does not question the sentence he is now serving and is not entitled on habeas corpus to again attack the validity of the sentence for robbery imposed on February 23, 1954 which was reviewed and *732approved by the Third District Court of Appeal, supra.
Accordingly, writ of habeas corpus issued is discharged.
ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, and HOPPING, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, J., concurs in judgment.