CHARLES ERICKSON
v.
NATHAN MAYO AS STATE PRISON CUSTODIAN
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 court held that the judgment was valid and sufficient, and the sentence was properly imposed under the applicable statute.
Charles Erickson was convicted of attempting to defraud by assuming to have inside information. He sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing his incarce…
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 Inside Information cases and more on FLexlaw
Charles Erickson was duly tried and convicted of an attempt to commit the crime denounced by Section 7308, C.G.L., 1927. F.S.A. Sec. 817.11. That section of the statutes makes it a crime to defraud, or attempt to defraud any individual, or individuals, out of anything of value, by assuming to have or to be able to obtain any secret, advance, or inside information regarding any person, transaction, act or thing, whether such person, transaction, act or thing exists or not.
*636Sentence was imposed under Section 7309 C.G.L., 1927. F.S.A. Sec. 817.12.
Erickson now makes application for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his incarceration is illegal because sentence was imposed without there first being an adjudication of guilt. See Sections 247, 248, 251, Florida Criminal Procedure Act, Acts 1939, c. 19554, F.S.A. Secs. 921.01, 921.02, 921.05.
The judgment complained of conforms in all respects to the form of judgment recommended in Mathis v. State, 67 Fla. 277, 64 So. 944, and approved by a long line of decisions of this Court. Though brief, it contains within it a judicial determination of defendant’s guilt, and consequently is sufficient. Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27, 129 So. 106, 109, 69 A.L.R. 783.
The point is also raised by petitioner that sentence should have been imposed upon him under Section 7544, C.G.L. 1927, F.S.A. Sec. 776.04, instead of under Section 7309, sufra.
Section 7544 prescribes penalties for attempts to commit offenses prohibited by law only in cases where no express provision is otherwise made for the punishment of such attempt. It has no application to the present case, for the penalty for violation of Section 7308, sufra is expressly prescribed by Section 7309, sufra.
The application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
It is so ordered.
BUFORD, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gordon v. Norris, 90 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1956)…all of these questions on a Certificate under Rule 27, supra, would be an intrusion on the trial jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Stanley v. Home Owners Mtg. Co., Fla.1949, 42 So. 2d 770; Florida Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v. Gardner, 152 Fla. 636, 12 So. 2d 574. For the reasons stated the Certificate is— Denied. DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.…
-
Giehler et ux. v. Ward, 65 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1953)…cretion. See 3 Am.Jur., pp. 759-763. It is not the purpose of the certified question procedure to have the Supreme Court function as a Circuit Court. The matter before us is similar to Florida National Bank of Jacksonville v. Gardner, 152 Fla. 636, 12 So. 2d 574 wherein this Court refused by “certified question” to determine the sufficiency of a bill tested by a motion to dismiss. The settlement of such a question would not, as of course, be “determinative of the cause”. Jurisdiction for consideration of t…
Authorities Cited
- Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1930)
- Mathis v. State, 67 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1914)