GEORGE W. MOAT, PETITIONER,
v.
NATHAN MAYO, AS 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.
George W. Moat petitioned for habeas corpus relief, claiming his sentence was void because it was imposed under the wrong Florida statute. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition because Moat had previously raised and lost the same issues in an earlier habeas corpus proceeding.
A subsequent habeas corpus application on the same facts and issues is precluded when a prior application for habeas corpus has been denied. Petitioner's application must therefore be denied.
“denial of application for habeas corpus precludes a subsequent application for habeas corpus in' the same' cause on the same facts and issues”
States the controlling rule of Florida law that bars successive habeas corpus petitions on identical grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoat was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment. He argued that the judgment and sentence were void because they were imposed under Section…
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 Void Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Chief Justice.
Petitioner applied for writ of habeas corpus on grounds that the judgment and two year sentence imposed upon him was void because imposed under Section 843.11, F.S.1951, F.S.A., whereas the information was drawn under Section 843.12, F.S.1951, F.S.A. The writ was issued.
Respondent has .filed a return asserting that the matters raised in this petition have been heretofore judicially determined by this Court on February 1, 1955, in a previous proceedings in habeas corpus.. In support thereof there.is attached to the return certified copies of notice for writ of habeas corpus and the order of denial entered by this Court. We are required to accept these allegations in the return as true “until impeached, and evidence is not needed to support an uncontroverted return.” Sullivan v. State, Fla. 1951; 49 So. 2d 794, 797; Cooper v. Sinclair, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 702, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 867; 74 S.Ct. 107, 98 L.Ed. 377.
The rule in this State is that denial of application for habeas corpus precludes a subsequent application for habeas corpus in' the same' cause on the same facts and issues. Section 79.10, F.S.1951, F.S.A.; Pope v. Mayo, Fla.1949, 39 So. 2d 286; D’Alessandro v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231. We have re-examined the -prior proceedings in habeas corpus and find that the same issues were there raised-and decided adversely to petitioner; Therefore,the petitioner is remanded.
H -W O .W p a p.. FJ O W M co J c 1 o h-1 a W r T: W 1-1 E-i < ¡3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Tilghman v. Culver, 99 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1957)…he judge’s act. Having concluded that the prisoner is lawfully in the custody of respondent, he cannot now, in these proceedings, question the validity of the five year sentence for contempt of court. Finch v. Mayo, supra; Hitson v. Mayo, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 591. In reaching this conclusion we express no views as to the validity of this unusually long sentence and expressly hold that this opinion and judgment is without prejudice to the defendant to question the contempt sentence at the proper time. The pe…
-
Hitson v. Mayo, 82 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1955)…uld not expire until February 23, 1957. Certified copy of the judgment, and, sentence wa.s attached to the re^ turn. , • Because this return is uncontrovert-ed we accept the allegations as true in absence of evidence otherwise. Moat v. Mayo, Fla., 82 So. 2d 591. Moreover, the judgment and five year sentence about which petitioner Complains was entered September 30,-1954 and provides that it should begin "at the expiration of sentence you, are now-serving-..” Petitioner does not complain of the intervenin…
-
Lewis v. State, 93 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1956)…filed in this court January 19, 1955, rendered any question as to sufficiency of the indictment res adjudicata. The petition was argued and briefed in this court, the same questions were raised and will not be further considered. Moat v. Mayo, Fla., 82 So. 2d 591. Even if the indictment had been defective for failure to allege the crime of robbery, such defect can be taken advantage of only by motion to quash and any error committed assigned on appeal. Such defect would not render the indictment void or subj…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson & Johnson v. Q-Tips, Inc., 346 U.S. 867 (U.S. 1953)
- Sullivan v. State Ex Rel. McCrory, 49 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1951)
- Cooper v. Sinclair, 66 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1953)
- D'Alessandro v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1931)