RAMBO
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a prisoner's challenge to his life sentence under the Habitual Criminal Statute, finding the conviction illegal due to insufficient allegations in the indictment.
Yes, the life sentence was illegal because the indictment did not meet the statutory requirement that each subsequent offense be committed and convicted after the prior conviction.
“To constitute * * * a fourth conviction within the purview of * * * Sec. 775.10 [Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A.], the infonmation or indictment must allege and the evidence must show that the offense charged in each information subsequent to the first was committed and the conviction therefor was had after the date of the then last preceding conviction.”
Establishes the legal standard for a valid habitual criminal conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarnest Rambo, a prisoner, challenged his life sentence imposed under Florida's Habitual Criminal Statute. The indictment alleged he had been convicte…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
' Petitioner, Earnest Rambo, an initiate of the Florida State Prison, submitted his request for relief by letter in which he questioned the ' legality of his conviction ' and sentence to life imprisonment on April 21, 1943, under Section 775.10, Florida Statutes, 1941, F.S.A., which statute is commonly known as the' “Habitual Criminal Statute.”
The indictment upon which Rambo was convicted alleges merely that “Earnest Rambo * * * has four times been convicted of felonies, to-wit: Breaking and entering, in Palm Beach County, State of Florida.” We held in Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806, 30 So. 2d 304, 306; “To constitute * * * a fourth conviction within the purview of * * * Sec. 775.10 [Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A.], the infonmation or indictment must allege and the evidence must show that the offense charged in each information subsequent to the first was committed and the conviction therefor was had after the date of the then last preceding conviction.” (Emphasis supplied.) Obviously then, the sentence of life imprisonment.must be set aside and declared null and void.
.However, it appears from respondent’s return that the petitioner ris-lawfully, held under another valid , sentence and he is therefore remanded to the custody of the respondent to complete the service of said sentence. . .
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (33 total)
-
Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 235 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…ly an award of lump sum alimony to the extent of the value of the husband’s undivided one-half interest in the stock. The order appealed does not declare that the court is awarding lump sum alimony to the wife, cf. Bezanilla v. Bezanilla, Fla. 1953, 65 So. 2d 754, and it is clear from a review of the record that the court did not intend it to be such. But if it was so intended, it could only be justified upon the basis of a modification pursuant to Section 61.14, F.S.1967, F.S.A., since alimony had been allo…
-
Rankin v. Rankin, 258 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…1951, and F.S.A., the chancellor had the power to order payment of alimony ‘in a lump sum.’ He had also the power to require the conveyance by the husband to the wife of real property owned entirely by the husband. See Bezanilla v. Bezanilla, Fla., 65 So. 2d 754. If the chancellor can order the conveyance of property the husband owns outright there is no reason to hold that he cannot order the man to convey to the woman his undivided interest in property they own as tenants in common.” We next come to the…
-
Rogoff v. Rogoff, 115 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…it has been held that such an award is not void, but that either party should be at liberty to apply to the trial court at any time for allocation of the separate amounts intended for alimony and for child support. Bezanilla v. Bezanilla, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 754, 756; Zalka v. Zalka, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 157, 159-160; Katiba v. Katiba, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 693. Such division of the award may become important on later petitions to modify the allowance. This may be because of a change of financial status…
Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806 (Fla. 1947)