Hysler v. State
| Decision Date | 20 February 1939 |
| Parties | HYSLER v. State |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Habeas corpus proceeding by Clyde Hysler against the State of Florida, to withhold execution of death penalty under murder conviction.
Application denied.
COUNSEL B. K. Roberts, of Tallahassee, for petitioner.
No appearance contra.
The petitioner, Clyde Hysler, was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree in April, 1937. That judgment and conviction was affirmed by this Court February 3, 1938 petition for rehearing was subsequently denied and the date of his execution was set by the Governor for the week beginning February 20, 1939.
He now applies for a stay order and a writ of habeas corpus to withhold the execution of the death penalty because (1) he was convicted as principal in the second degree and the principal in the first degree has not been convicted and his conviction affirmed by this Court, and (2) he was without mental capacity to commit the crime which he is charged and in fact has now become mentally incompetent, unstable, and insane.
One the question of his sanity or insanity Ex parte Chesser, 93 Fla 291, 111 So. 720, offers a complete answer. It was there held that 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.
It was further held that such applications should be addressed to the trial court, that it was not essential that permission should first be secured from this Court and that the proper practice was 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.
If the stay of execution is granted, the trial court should proceed in due course of law to determine the issue of petitioner's sanity. If found to be sane, he should be remanded for execution of the sentence, but if found to be insane an appropriate order should be made for his custody until his return to sanity is appropriately adjudicated when the sentence should be executed.
The petition involved here is offered by counsel for petitioner is sworn to on 'information and belief', is not supported by affidavits or other proof, for which and for other reasons it fails to meet the requirements of the law and is therefore insufficient.
The other ground relied on by petitioner for his writ is also answered by the decisions of this Court. The petitioner was indicted under Section 7111(5009) Compiled General Laws of 1927, as follows:
'Whoever counsels, hires, or otherwise procures a felony to be committed, may be indicted and convicted as an accessory before the fact, either with the principal felon or after his conviction, or may be indicted and convicted of substantive felony, whether the principal has or has not been convicted or is or is not amenable to justice; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hysler v. State of Florida
...was made to the Supreme Court of Florida, partly on the ground of insanity. This was denied by that Court on February 20, 1939. 136 Fla. 563, 187 So. 261. Tyler broke jail and has apparently remained a fugitive from justice. Baker was tried after Hysler was convicted of murder in the first ......
-
State v. Peel
...predicated upon his being present, aiding and abetting his son in committing a justifiable homicide.' In the case of Hysler v. State, 1939, 136 Fla. 563, 187 So. 261, 262, a petition for habeas corpus was brought by Clyde Hysler against the State of Florida to withhold execution of the deat......
-
Dantzic v. State
...for a stay order and a writ of Habeas corpus to withhold the execution of the death penalty had been denied in Hysler v. State, 136 Fla. 563, 187 So. 261 (1939). Further investigation of the Chambers case discloses: Prior to the cited decision, the Supreme Court of Florida in Chambers v. St......
-
Skipper v. State
...of the information in the cases of Kauz v. State, 98 Fla. 687, 124 So. 177; Tucker v. State, 100 Fla. 1440, 131 So. 327; Hysler v. State, 136 Fla. 563, 187 So. 261. contention that a conviction of Richter and Armstrong, the other principals informed against, is essential to sustain the vali......