Ex Parte Chesser

• Decision Date: 18 February 1927
• Citation: 111 So. 720,93 Fla. 291
• Parties: Ex parte CHESSER.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

111 So. 720

93 Fla. 291

Ex parte CHESSER.

Florida Supreme Court

February 18, 1927

En Banc.

Original petition on the part of Rufus Chesser, sentenced to death for murder, for a writ of habeas corpus to determine his sanity.

Petition denied.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

On defendant's becoming insane after conviction of capital offense, application to trial court for stay of execution pending inquiry is proper. Where a person becomes insane after his conviction of a capital offense, a proper judicial procedure is not an attack on the judgment of conviction, but an application to the trial court for a stay of execution of its judgment and sentence until that court can inquire into and adjudicate the question of the petitioner's sanity or insanity since the judgment of conviction.

Application for stay of execution for insanity after conviction should be by proper person, supported by affidavits prima facie showing insanity. An application for a stay of capital punishment on the ground of insanity after conviction should be made by some proper person on behalf of the petitioner, supported by affidavits of facts showing at least prima facie that the petitioner is in fact insane.

Trial court may stay execution of defendant committed to state prison for execution in another circuit. Where the trial court's judgment is being executed by administrative officer under executive warrant; and the statute authorizes the trial court to commit a convicted defendant to the state prison in another circuit for execution, the trial court has the power by appropriate procedure to order a stay of the execution of its judgment, even though the defendant be in another circuit under a commitment authorized by the statute.

Generally obtaining leave of appellate court affirming conviction to apply to trial court to inquire into convict's sanity is not necessary; trial court may stay execution of convict if matter has not been otherwise adjudicated or control assumed by appellate court by supersedeas or otherwise. Where the application to inquire into a convict's sanity is not to disturb the judgment, but to suspend the execution pending inquiry whether petitioner is now insane, it is not ordinarily essential to obtain leave of the appellate court to make application to the trial court, even though the judgment of conviction has been affirmed by the appellate court. The trial court has control of its process of conviction when that matter has not been otherwise adjudicated or control thereof assumed by the appellate court by supersedeas or otherwise.

Court on staying execution to determine convict's sanity should remand him for execution if he is found sane; if convict sentenced to death is found insane, appropriate order should be made for his custody until return to sanity, when sentence may be enforced, unless otherwise ordered by competent authority. Where a stay of execution of capital punishment is granted, the court should proceed in due course of law to determine the issue of petitioner's sanity, and to remand him for an execution of the sentence if found to be sane; or, if found to be insane, the judgment of conviction being in force, to make an appropriate order fo the custody of the petitioner until his return to sanity is duly determined, in which event, the judgment of conviction and sentence being valid, it will be enforced as provided by law unless otherwise ordered by competent authority.

COUNSEL

James H. Bunch, of Jacksonville, for petitioner.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

A petition was filed herein, stating that Rufus Chesser had been convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death by electrocution; and, by affidavits attached to the petition, it is sought to show that, since...