TOM DYKES
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.
Tom Dykes challenged his perjury conviction via habeas corpus, arguing the indictment was defective and violated his rights. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that habeas corpus cannot be used to attack the sufficiency of an indictment and that the indictment adequately charged perjury.
The indictment was sufficient to charge perjury and did not entirely fail in that regard. Habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a motion to quash or as an alternative to writ of error. Because the indictment was sufficient, the judgment and sentence were not void, and the third question regarding clemency rights had no basis in the record.
“The Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be used as a substitute for motion to quash, nor may it be used in lieu of Writ of Error.”
Establishes that habeas corpus is not the proper procedural mechanism to challenge the sufficiency of an indictment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDykes was indicted for perjury under Florida law. He sought habeas corpus relief, challenging the sufficiency of the indictment on multiple grounds, i…
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 Executive Clemency cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error brings review judgment in habeas corpus proceedings remanding petitioner to the custody of respondent.
Plaintiff in error propounds three questions, as’ follows:
“Question No. 1: Did the Bill of Indictment returned against the Plaintiff in Error, properly chárge the offense of PERJURY and substantially within the language of the Statute, and was same sufficient to charge an offense under the laws of the State of Florida?
"’Question No. 2: Does the purported Indictment returned against the Plaintiff in Error negative all of the facts which are and were material to the issue, and the purported charge of PERJURY, wherein it is' alleged that the Plaintiff .in Error did commit the crime of PERJURY within and before the trial Court?
“Question No. 3: Is Plaintiff in Error being deprived of his right to make application to the State Board of Pardons for Executive Clemency because of the imposition of an illegal judgment of conviction and sentence?”
The Indictment has been examined and we find that it does not entirely fail to charge the offense of Perjury.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be used as a substitute for motion to quash, nor may it be used in lieu of Writ of Error. The Statute under which the Indictment was drawn is valid. Therefore, the Indictment is sufficient to withstand attack by Habeas Corpus proceedings. Jackson v. State, 71 Fla. 342, 71 Sou. 332; In re: Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 Sou. 604; Dukes v. State, 81 Fla. 247; 88 Sou. 474; *768Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505, 82 Sou. 44; Amos v. Chapman, 108 Fla. 360, 146 Sou. 98; State ex rel. Claire v. Coleman, 129 Fla. 880, 177 Sou. 288; State ex rel. Miller v. Coleman, 130 Fla. 547, 178 Sou. 157.
We having held herein that the indictment was sufficient to withstand the attack here made, there is no' showing that the judgment and Sentence imposed was void. Therefore, the third question is without basis in the record.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Thomas, J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1927' and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1919)
- In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068 (Fla. 1917)
- Jackson v. State, 71 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1916)
- Dukes v. State, 81 Fla. 247 (Fla. 1921)
- Amos v. Chapman, 108 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. Coleman, 129 Fla. 880 (Fla. 1937)
- State v. Coleman, 130 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1938)