HODGES
v.
MAYO, 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.
Willie Hodges, a life-sentenced habitual criminal, petitioned for relief from his conviction, arguing that the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements for habitual criminal prosecution. The Florida Supreme Court found the life sentence improper because the requisite four separate felonies were not each subsequent to the last, but remanded for resentencing as a second offender for the two 1942 convictions.
The life sentence was improper and null and void because it violated the statutory requirement that the four felonies be each subsequent to the last, as Hodges had two convictions on August 1, 1935, and two on January 5, 1942. The case was remanded for resentencing as a second offender under Section 775.09 for the two 1942 felonies, with sentences to be entered nunc pro tunc so Hodges would receive credit for time served.
“in order for a true bill to lie against a defendant under Section 775.10, supra, the commission of and convictions for the four felonies required by the Act must 'have occurred each subsequent to the last, that is, that no two acts of commission could occur and that no two convictions could be had on any one day.”
Establishes the strict statutory requirement for habitual criminal prosecution that was violated in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHodges was convicted on February 9, 1942, as a habitual criminal under Section 775.10 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The record shows that on Aug…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
Petitioner, Willie Hodges, is an inmate of the Florida State Prison at Raiford, Florida. By letter dated February 11, 1953, and addressed to the Supreme Court he questions the legality of and asks relief from Jlís conviction of February 9, 1942, in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County as a violator of the “Habitual Criminal Statute,” Section 775.10, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Hodges bases his petition upon noncompliance with the requirement for conviction pursuant to Section 775.10, supra, as published in Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806, 30 So. 2d 304. In that case this Court held that in order for a true bill to lie against a defendant under Section 775.10, supra, the commission of and convictions for the four felonies required by the Act must 'have occurred each subsequent to the last, that is, that no two acts of commission could occur and that no two convictions could be had on any one day. The record indicates that on August 1, 1935, petitioner was convicted of two separate charges of forgery; further, that on January 5, 1942, he was convicted on two separate charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the said life sentence was improper and is null and void.
However, said information sufficiently charged the petitioner as a second offender on account of each of the two above named felonies for which he was convicted on January 5, 1942 and, since he pled guilty to said information, he is hereby remanded to the custody of the respondent with directions that he be presented to the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County, Florida, for the imposition of judgment and sentence as such second offender on account of each of said two felonies pursuant to Section 775.09, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Such sentences may be concurrent or consecutive, according to the discretion of said court. Such judgments and sentences should be entered nunc pro tunc as of the date of said life sentence so that the petitioner will receive proper credit for the time actually served on said life sentence and for all gain time earned and not forfeited while imprisoned under said life sentence.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kerfert Butler Adams v. Culver, 111 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1959)…y in a habeas corpus proceeding when he has, in fact, been charged with and has plead guilty to an offense denounced by another statute. See Anglin v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 918; Johnson v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 287; Hodges v. Mayo, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 750. Here, the petitioner was charged with and plead guilty to an offense denounced by § 847.01, supra. It is true that the charge was inartificially and, perhaps, defectively drawn under that statute, cf. Reyes v. State, 1894, 34 Fla. 181, 15 So. 875.…1 / 2
-
Perry v. Mayo, 72 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1954)…and between the second conviction and the third there expired a period of time longer than the sentence previously imposed, so the ruling harmonized with the one in Washington v. Mayo, supra. A similar situation was present in Hodges v. Mayo, Fla., 65 So. 2d 750, and the same ruling was made. To end the confusion, once for all, we adhere to the rule that in order to form a basis for sentence as a second or fourth offender, it must be established that offenses after the primary one were in each case committ…
-
Johnson v. Mayo, 75 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1954)…tence as to a fourth conviction is void. However, the information is sufficient to [*289] allege a second conviction and if he was guilty under such information, the prisoner may be remanded for a sentence as a second offender. Hodges v. Mayo, Fla., 65 So. 2d 750. However, the County Solicitor is authorized to file a new information to to correct defects or insufficiencies. The dates of the commission of the crimes are important and the information should allege such dates. A dozen crimes may have been comm…
Authorities Cited
- Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806 (Fla. 1947)