Baumgartner v. Joughin
| Decision Date | 03 October 1932 |
| Citation | 143 So. 436,107 Fla. 858 |
| Parties | BAUMGARTNER v. JOUGHIN, Sheriff. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
On extraordinary motion for a rehearing. Motion denied, and former opinion adhered to and reaffirmed.
For former opinion, see 141 So. 185.
COUNSEL Dickenson & Lake, of Tampa, for petitioner.
Charles F. Blake, of Tampa, for respondent.
On April 26, 1932, we ordered the petitioner herein remanded to serve the sentence imposed upon him by Circuit Judge L. L. Parks for contempt of court in improperly approaching a juror. 141 So. 185. A rehearing of that order was denied, but, upon counsel's motion presenting an extraordinary application for rehearing, permission to file briefs in support of such extraordinary motion was given, in order that the court might be fully satisfied before its judgment became final that its judgment of remand was correct.
Further consideration of the case fails to convince us that we erred in our first conclusions.
The return to the writ of habeas corpus shows that the cause of detention is a contempt, plainly and specifically charged in the commitment by the circuit judge. Under the statute, such showing is sufficient to warrant and require a remand of the prisoner (section 5439, Comp. Gen. Laws, section 3575, Rev Gen. St.), unless it is in some way made to appear from the record supporting the commitment, which record is a part of the 'charge' within the meaning of the statute, that the commitment is illegal.
The order of commitment recites that there was a 'full hearing of this matter' before the circuit judge; that the circuit judge 'having heard the testimony in the matter and having read the answer or return filed by the respondent' and having 'offered to allow the respondent the privilege of cross-examination of the witnesses adduced against him,' and respondent being allowed to 'introduce such testimony by witnesses as he might think proper,' and respondent having availed himself of none of the opportunities to refute the charge made against him by the rule nisi, the allegations set forth in the rule nisi issued by the court had been found by the court 'proven and substantiated by the evidence.'
We cannot presume against the validity of the judgment of commitment in the face of such recitals in the order of commitment. If the recitals are untrue, that fact should have been demonstrated by other than the mere assertions of petitioner to that effect,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Bentley
...contempt. We find support for this conclusion in Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335, 341, 141 So. 185, rehearing denied, 107 Fla. 858, 143 So. 436 (1932), in which the facts clearly demonstrate that the defendant was found in indirect criminal contempt for jury tampering and sentenced to ......
-
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure., In re
...that the defendant have the right to assistance by counsel. (Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335, 141 So. 185, adhered to in 107 Fla. 858, 143 So. 436.) (3) Order of Arrest; Bail.--Arrest and bail, although apparently used only rarely, where permissible at common law and, accordingly, are ......
-
Van Sweringen v. Van Sweringen
...demands of the rule. Cf. In re Merrill, supra; In re Fletcher, supra; N.L.R.B. v. Arcade-Sunshine Co., supra; Baumgartner v. Joughin, 107 Fla. 858, 143 So. 436 (Sup.Ct.1932). Thus we are brought to appellant's attack on the sufficiency of the evidence upon which his conviction was founded. ......
-
Scussel v. Kelly
... ... Page 779 ... may be made to appear, either as to law or fact. Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335, 141 So. 185; Id., 107 Fla. 858, 143 So. 436; Wilson v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 353, 141 So. 182; State ex rel. Brooks v ... ...