JAMES BATTLE
v.
S. E. STONE, AS SHERIFF OF VOLUSIA COUNTY
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.
James Battle challenged his incarceration on a habeas corpus petition, arguing he was unlawfully detained. The circuit court remanded him to custody, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding the same legal issue had already been decided adversely to Battle in a contemporaneous case.
The court affirmed the judgment remanding Battle to custody, finding that the precise legal question raised had already been decided adversely to Battle in the case of Willie Scott v. S. E. Stone, as Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida.
“On October 23, 1936, plaintiff in error filed in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, his petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging, among other things, that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty by S. E. Stone, as Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida.”
Establishes the nature of the underlying claim and the parties involved in the original habeas corpus petition.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 23, 1936, Battle filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his detention by Sheriff S. E. Stone. The Sheriff held Battle pursuant to a com…
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 Motion To Affirm cases and more on FLexlaw
On October 23, 1936, plaintiff in error filed in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, his petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging, among other things, that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty by S. E. Stone, as Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida. A writ of habeas corpus issued and was directed to S. E. Stone, as Sheriff of Volusia County, commanding that he produce the body of petitioner, with the cause of his said detention. Honorable S. E. Stone, Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida, filed his return to the writ of habeas corpus, and for cause of detention showed that he held the said James Battle, plaintiff in error, by virtue of a commitment to serve a sentence issuing out of the Justice of the Peace Court of the Ninth District of Volusia County, Florida, on October 20, 1936, by George L. Kelley, Justice of the Peace. The commitment directed the said James Battle to pay a fine of $5.00 and costs of prosecution amounting to $29.76, and in default thereof, to serve a term of sixty days in the county jail at hard labor, subject to the Board of County Commissioners.
The cause was heard on the 23rd day of October, 1936, by Honorable H. B. Frederick, Circuit Judge of Volusia County, Florida, and after the hearing an order was made and entered remanding plaintiff in error to the custody of *138S. E. Stone, as Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida, to serve the sentence imposed and described in the commitment.
A writ of error was sued out, supersedeas perfected, and the cause is here for review and a reversal is sought of the order remanding plaintiff in error to the custody of the Sheriff of Volusia County.
The transcript of the record was filed in this Court on November 20, 1936, and a brief m support of petitioner’s contention has not been filed as required by the rule of this Court. On December 20, 1937, Honorable Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, by Tyrus A. Norwood, Assistant Attorney General, filed a motion to affirm the judgment of the lower court in this cause on the ground that the precise question raised in said appeal was decided adversely to the petitioner by this Court on November 4, 1937, in the case of Willie Scott v. S. E. Stone, as Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida. We have examined the entire transcript of the record, as well as the citation of authority, supra, and it appearing that the contention of the Attorney General’s office is well founded and should be granted on the authority, supra, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.