RICHARD HARRY SNELL, APPELLANT,
v.
NATHAN MAYO, AS PRISON CUSTODIAN OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
In this habeas corpus appeal, the Florida Supreme Court held that appeals from habeas corpus orders seeking release from criminal custody must follow the criminal appeal timeline rules rather than civil procedure rules. The court denied the appellee's motion to dismiss based on a procedural deadline, finding the appeal timely under the criminal statute.
Appeals from habeas corpus proceedings involving detention on criminal charges must be prosecuted in accordance with the criminal appeal statute (Chapter 924, F.S.1953), not civil procedure rules. Snell's appeal, filed within ninety days as required by Section 924.09, was timely, and the motion to dismiss was denied.
“the writ of habeas corpus "is not an action or suit, but is a summary remedy open to the person, detained. It is civil rather than criminal in nature and is a legal and not equitable remedy."”
Establishes the traditional characterization of habeas corpus as civil in nature
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Harry Snell filed habeas corpus proceedings seeking release from custody of Nathan Mayo, the Prison Custodian of the State of Florida. The low…
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 Habeas Corpus Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
Appellee has filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal in the instant case, which was taken by appellant from an order entered in habeas corpus proceedings instituted by him in the court below to secure his release from the custody of the appellee, as Prison Custodian of the State of Florida. The order appealed from dismissed the habeas corpus proceedings and remanded the appellant to the custody of the appellee. It was entered on November 22, 1954, and Notice of Appeal was filed by appellant on February 17, 1955. This was more than sixty but less than ninety days from the date of the order appealed from. The appellee cites State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454, 152 So. 207, 156 So. 261, decided in 1933 in support of his contention that habeas corpus proceedings are civil in nature and that appeals from orders entered in such proceedings’must be filed within sixty days from the date of the entry of the order. This contention cannot be sustained.
It is true that in State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, supra [111 Fla. 454,- 152 So. 209], we said that the writ of habeas corpus “is not an action or suit, but is a summary remedy open to the person, detained. It is civil rather than criminal in nature and is a legal and not equitable remedy.” While it well may be that, as to habeas corpus proceedings which are not concerned with. obtaining release from custody by one who is .being held on a charge- ;or ’conviction of violating, the criminal laws of this state, such proceedings might be considered “civil rather than criminal in nature”, there can be no doubt that as to habeas corpus proceedings of the type with which we are here concerned the appeal must be prosecuted in accordance with the statute adopted in 1939 relating to appeals in criminal cases, Chapter 924, Fla.Stat.1953, F.S.A. It was so held in Sweat v. Hixon, Fla., 1950, 45 So. 2d 190. In that case, the petitioner sought to obtain his-release from the custody of the Sheriff of Duval County in habeas corpus proceedings, and an order requiring his release was entered by the lower court.
On appeal to this court by the State, as authorized by Section 924.07(6), Fla.Stat.1953, F.S.A., it was held that the appeal was not timely filed because not filed within twenty days of the date of the order appealed from, as required by Section 924.10, Fla.Stat.1953, F.S.A. We can see no difference in principle where the petitioner is the appealing party.
Since the appeal in the instant case was filed within ninety days-of the date of the entry of the order appealed from, as provided by Section 924.09, Fla.Stat.1953, F.S.A., it was timely filed, and the appellee’s Motion to Dismiss is, therefore, denied.
MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crownover v. The Honorable George T. Shannon, 170 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1964)…r than criminal in nature even though sought in behalf of one charged [*301] with, or convicted of, a crime. Frederick v. Rowe, 105 Fla. 193, 140 So. 915; State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454, 152 So. 207, 156 So. 261; Snell v. Mayo, Fla., 80 So. 2d 330; 15 Fla.Jur. 387. Section 924.07(6), F.S.A. (enacted as Section 286, Chapter 19554, Acts of 1939) provides: “924.07. Appeal by state. An appeal may be taken by the state from: «* * * “(6) Judgment discharging prisoner on habeas corpus.” Without…1 / 3
-
Snell v. Mayo, 84 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1956)
-
Barton v. State, 176 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…sition. CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur. . Roy v. Wainwriglit, (Fla.1963) 151 So. 2d 825, 828. . State v. Weeks, (Fla.1964) 166 So. 2d 892. .Ibid. . Crownover v. Shannon et al., (Fla.1964) 170 So. 2d 299. . Snell v. Mayo, (Fla.1955) 80 So. 2d 330.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. George J. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454 (Fla. 1933)