CLEVELAND HOLLINGSHEAD, PETITIONER,
v.
NATHAN MAYO, PRISON CUSTODIAN OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 denied a habeas corpus petition, holding that the writ cannot be used to challenge a sentence when the petitioner is also validly held under a separate, unchallenged sentence. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to quash the writ.
No, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a vehicle of appeal to challenge one sentence when the petitioner is validly held under a separate, unchallenged sentence. The function of habeas corpus is to test the grounds for present detention.
“It is so well settled as to require no citation of authority that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a vehicle of appeal. Its function is to test the reasons or grounds for present restraint and detention.”
This quote establishes the fundamental principle that habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal and is limited to examining the legality of the current detention.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a two-year sentence imposed on December 4, 1953. However, the respondent's return indicated…
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.
SEBRING, Justice.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which the petitioner attempts to question the validity of a two-year sentence imposed on him on December 4, 1953. In the return of the respondent to the writ issued in the cause it is shown that the petitioner is •being held in custody not only by virtue of the sentence imposed on December 4, 1953, which he attacks as invalid, but also under a three-year sentence imposed on July 13, 1954, of which he does not complain. It is so well settled as to require no citation of authority that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a vehicle of appeal. Its function is to test the reasons or grounds for present restraint and detention.
The petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to be discharged from custody under the 3-year sentence imposed on July 13, 1954, and, consequently, the writ should be quashed and the petitioner should be remanded to custody. Allison v. Baker, 152 Fla. 274, 11 So. 2d 578; Ex parte Puckett, 159 Fla. 468, 31 So. 2d 868; Clemens v. Mayo, 159 Fla. 473, 31 So. 2d 869.
It is so ordered.
MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Falagon v. State, 167 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…tion of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 the relief here sought was available through habeas corpus proceedings. Normally habeas corpus will not be entertained where a prisoner held under two sentences attacks only one. Hollingshead v. Mayo, Fla. 1955, 79 So. 2d 774. However it has been successfully utilized where only one of multiple sentences has been attacked on the ground of lack of due process. See Dora v. Cochran, Fla. 1962, 138 So. 2d 508 where the petitioner alleged that his conviction for armed robbery…
-
Schack v. State of Fla. & L. L. Wainwright, 202 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…pellant entitled to be released from the State Prison under bail for the sentence which he is presently serving. The purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is to question the legality of a petitioner’s present deten [*825] tion. Hollingshead v. Mayo, 79 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1955); Sneed v. Mayo, 69 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1954). It appears from the record that appellant is presently being legally imprisoned and was not entitled to the relief requested by his petition. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the…
-
Alderman v. State, 188 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1966)…issued shows that petitioner is legally in custody under another sentence running concurrently which he has not attacked and consequently he would not be released, even though he prevailed, because of that sentence. Hollingshead v. Mayo (Fla.1955), 79 So. 2d 774; Hitson v. Mayo (Fla.1955), 82 So. 2d 591; Gorman v. Cochran (Fla.1961), 127 So. 2d 667; Falagon v. State (Fla.App.1964), 167 So. 2d 62. It appears, however, from the concessions made by the return, that the petitioner was effectively thwarted in h…
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
- Stafford Allison v. Baker, 152 Fla. 274 (Fla. 1943)
- Clemens v. Mayo, 159 Fla. 473 (Fla. 1947)
- Ex parte: George F. Puckett, 159 Fla. 468 (Fla. 1947)