187 So. 261 (Fla. 1939), Hysler v. State

Citation:187 So. 261, 136 Fla. 563
Opinion Judge:TERRELL, Chief Justice.
Party Name:HYSLER v. State
Attorney:[136 Fla. 564]B. K. Roberts, of Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Case Date:February 20, 1939
Court:Supreme Court of Florida
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 261

187 So. 261 (Fla. 1939)

136 Fla. 563

HYSLER

v.

State

Florida Supreme Court

February 20, 1939

Habeas corpus proceeding by Clyde Hysler against the State of Florida, to withhold execution of death penalty under murder conviction.

Application denied.

COUNSEL [136 Fla. 564]B. K. Roberts, of Tallahassee, for petitioner.

No appearance contra.

OPINION

TERRELL, Chief Justice.

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.

[136 Fla. 565] 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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP