EX PARTE ROY PAUL BARNES, PETITIONER
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.
Roy Paul Barnes challenged his murder conviction via habeas corpus, alleging the trial court failed to comply with Florida statute requiring judicial examination of evidence when a defendant pleads guilty to murder. The Florida Supreme Court granted relief, finding the judgment void because the court did not hear testimony to determine the degree of homicide as required by law.
The trial court violated the mandatory statutory requirement. When a defendant pleads guilty to murder, the court must take and examine evidence to determine whether the defendant is guilty of murder in the first, second, or third degree, or manslaughter. The judgment was void because the record did not show the court heard any testimony or evidence before imposing sentence.
“When the jury find the defendant guilty under an indictment for murder, they shall ascertain by their verdict the degree of unlawful homicide of which he is guilty, but if the defendant on arraignment confesses his guilt, the court shall proceed to determine the degree upon an examination of the testimony and pass sentence accordingly.”
The controlling statute establishing mandatory requirement that court examine testimony when defendant pleads guilty to murder.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarnes was indicted for murder in the first degree. On November 13, 1936, he withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea. The State Attorne…
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 Void Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus.
The record shows that petitioner was indicted for the offense of murder in the first degree. The record shows the following:
*13“Friday, November 13, 1936.
“State of Florida v. Murder in the First Degree
“Roy Paul Barnes
“Now on this date comes the State by its Attorney, the defendant, Roy Paul Barnes, in person, and by his attorney, in open court, thereupon the said defendant, Roy Paul Barnes, withdrew his plea of not guilty heretofore entered herein and entered a plea of guilty as charged in the indictment on file herein. Thereupon the State Attorney announced in open court, that he recommended a sentence of life imprisonment in this case. The court thereupon adjudged the defendant to be guilty of murder in the first degree, as charged in the indictment.
“Thereupon, upon recommendation of the State Attorney that the punishment of life imprisonment be inflicted upon the accused, the court proceeded to pronounce the' following sentence: The prisoner, Roy Paul Barnes, was called to the stand and asked if he had anything to say why the sentence of the law and judgment of the court should not now be pronounced on him, he answering nothing in bar or preclusion thereof, the court proceeded to'pronounce the following sentence to-wit: It is the sentence of the law and judgment of the court that you, Roy Paul Barnes, for your offense and in accordance with the judgment in this cause, shall be confined and imprisoned in the State prison of the State of Florida for the remainder of your natural life. Thereupon the prisoner was remanded to the custody of the sheriff.”
Section 5038 R. G. S., 7140 C. G. L., provides:
“When the jury find the defendant guilty under an indictment for murder, they shall ascertain by their verdict the degree of unlawful homicide of which he is guilty, but *14if the defendant on arraignment confesses his guilt, the court shall proceed to determine the degree upon an examination of the testimony and pass sentence accordingly.”
The petition alleges that the provisions of this statute were not complied with. The return of the respondent denies that the provisions of the statute were not complied with.
The record of a trial where the defendant is charged with the offense of murder in the first degree must show that evidence was produced before the court touching the question of the guilt of the accused.
The requirements of the statute, supra, are mandatory and the record of the trial and judgment must show that the same have been complied with. See Casey v. State, 116 Fla. 3, 156 Sou. 282, wherein we said:
“We interpret Section 5038, Revised General Statutes of 1920, supra, to mean that when a defendant is arraigned and pleads guilty to a charge of murder, it becomes the duty of the trial court to take and examine the evidence affecting ■the charge against him, determine the degree of the homicide and pass sentence accordingly. The judge in other words under such circumstances is placed in the position of a jury and must determine from the evidence whether the defendant is guilty of murder in the first, second or third degree, or manslaughter and may in any case, consider the question of whether or not his judgment should be tempered with mercy.”
The record of the judgment as submitted by certified copy thereof under the hand and seal of the clerk of the circuit court, supports the allegation of the petition to the effect that the circuit judge did not take and consider testimony in the case and on consideration thereof determine the degree of unlawful homicide of which the accused should be adjudged guilty.
*15It, therefore, follows that the judgment is void and the defendant should be discharged from custody under that pretended judgment but should be redelivered by the relator to the Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, to be by him held and safely kept until the further order of the circuit court, or other court of competent jurisdiction, on the charge of the indictment aforesaid.
So ordered.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cash v. Culver, 122 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1960)…beas corpus proceeding even after the appeal period has expired. We are not here confronted by contended lack of jurisdiction in the trial court. The Court had jurisdiction but its void judgment will not support petitioner’s detention. In re Barnes, 146 Fla. 12, 200 So. 93; State ex rel. Grebstein v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 481, 129 So. 818; Jones v. Cook, 146 Fla. 253, 200 So. 856; 25 Am.Jur. “Habeas Corpus” Section 153, p. 248. Finding as we do that the ultimate conviction of the petitioner was obtained as a r…
-
State v. Pitts, 227 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…be retained in custody by the respondent to be by him held and safely kept until the further order of the Circuit Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit, on the charge of the information pursuant to which he was originally incarcerated. In re Barnes, supra [146 Fla. 12, 200 So. 93]; Chandler v. Fretag, supra [348 U.S. 3, 75 S.Ct. 1, 99 L.Ed. 4], In sum, the petitioner shall be detained subject to the event of another trial in due course of law.” So it is then that the effect of Judge Holley’s order vacating the j…
Authorities Cited
- Casey v. State (Fla. 1924)