ANGELO D'ALESSANDRO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
F. S. TIPPINS, SHERIFF, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Angelo D'Alessandro sought habeas corpus relief after his conviction for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of his third habeas corpus petition, holding that a final judgment in habeas corpus is conclusive and cannot be relitigated absent reversal through proper appellate procedures.
The Court held that once a habeas corpus judgment is entered and declared valid by appellate review, it becomes conclusive and cannot be relitigated through subsequent habeas corpus petitions for the same cause. A person remanded under such a judgment may only challenge it through writ of error or action for false imprisonment.
“So far as the record discloses in this case, the .verdict of the jury was correct, and the only error which existed, if any at all, was in the judgment or sentence originally entered.”
Establishes that the conviction itself was valid and only procedural defects existed in sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD'Alessandro was convicted by jury in Lee County Circuit Court on May 24, 1926, for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors and sentenced accordin…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
— The Plaintiff in Error, (hereinafter called petitioner) was tried by a jury and found guilty of the offense of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors in the County Court of Lee County on the 24th day of May, 1926, and duly sentenced.
From the judgment of conviction in the County Court of Lee County an appeal was prosecuted to the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit and the judgment of convic*11tion was affirmed in December, 1926. On the 10th day of December of the same year petitioner began serving the sentence imposed upon him and continued serving his sentence until the 8th day of January, 1927, when petitioner obtained a Writ of Habeas Corpus from the Judge of the 19th Judicial Circuit, and upon a hearing was remanded to the County Court of Lee County on account of certain errors and imperfections in the judgment and sentence.
In pursuance of the Order of the Judge of the 19th Judicial Circuit remanding petitioner, petitioner was re-sentenced on the 25th day of January, 1927.
On the 15th day of February, 1929, petitioner obtained another Writ of Habeas Corpus. This Writ from the Judge of the 12th Judicial Circuit. The petitioner was again remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Lee County. Writ of Error was taken to this Court from the Order of the Judge of the Circuit Court remanding petitioner and the order of the Circuit Judge of the 12th Judicial Circuit was affirmed by this Court. In affirming the lower Court this Court said in the case of D’Alessandro vs. Tippins, Sheriff, 124 So. 455:
“So far as the record discloses in this case, the .verdict of the jury was correct, and the only error which existed, if any at all, was in the judgment or sentence originally entered. The petitioner, after serving one month approximately of the term imposed by the sentence, complained of such error. There was no error therefore in the cause being remanded for a proper judgment or sentence upon the verdict. See Roberts v. State, 30 Fla.. 82, 11 So. 536; Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713; Ex Parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332, 111 So. 518; Blackwelder v. Morris, 89 Fla. 87, 103 So. 124.
‘£ The Judgment or sentence as corrected is valid. The petitioner, having served one month approximately, has only to serve for the remainder of the term imposed. ’ ’
The record in this ease shows that the petitioner has been given every right afforded any man charged with a crime.
1st: He was tried by a jury.
*122d: Three Writs of Habeas Corpus were granted him and two appeals to this Court.
The petitioner was remanded under a judgment declared valid by this Court, and there being no change in the cause of his detention, it is, therefore, apparent that Section 5443, Compiled General Laws of Florida, relating to the effect of a judgment in habeas corpus is applicable to this case.
Section 5443 provides that:
“The judgment entered of record shall be conclusive until reversed in the manner hereinafter provided for, and no person remanded by such judgment while the same continues in force shall be at liberty to obtain another habeas corpus for the same cause, or by any other proceeding to bring the same matter in question, except by a writ of error, or by action of false imprisonment. ’ ’ The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J. and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Brown, J.J., concur.
Davis, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Chapman, 127 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1937)…us. True, we have in our decisions given effect to Sections 5441-5443, C. G. L., which make both a judgment remanding, as well as one discharging, a prisoner conclusive until reversed in the manner provided by the statute. D’Allessandro v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231; State v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 So. 97; State v. Prescott, 110 Fla. 37, 148 So. 533; State v. Drumbright, 116 Fla. 586, 156 So. 721. But that question is not properly presented for our consideration here. The information here under…
-
Moat v. Mayo, 82 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1955)…e is that denial of application for habeas corpus precludes a subsequent application for habeas corpus in' the same' cause on the same facts and issues. Section 79.10, F.S.1951, F.S.A.; Pope v. Mayo, Fla.1949, 39 So. 2d 286; D’Alessandro v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231. We have re-examined the -prior proceedings in habeas corpus and find that the same issues were there raised- and decided adversely to petitioner; Therefore,the petitioner is remanded. H -W O .W p a p.. FJ O W M co J c 1 o h-1 a W r T…
-
Buss v. Reichman, 53 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…abeas corpus precludes a subsequent application for ha-beas corpus in the same cause on the same facts and issues.” Moat v. Mayo, 82 So. 2d 591 (Fla.1955); § 79.10, Fla. Stat. (1951); see also Scaldeferri, 285 So. 2d at 411; D'Alessandro v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231 (1931). Once fully litigated, the matter is res judicata, and section 79.10, Florida Statutes, enjoins a prisoner from relitigating the issue in a different forum. State ex rel. Miller v. Kelly, 88 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1956); see also Grazia…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wallace v. State, 26 So. 713 (Fla. 1899)
- Ex parte Browne, 93 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1927)
- D'Alessandro v. Tippins, 98 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1929)
- Roberts v. State, 30 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1892)
- Blackwelder v. Morris, 89 Fla. 87 (Fla. 1925)