Bronson v. State
| Decision Date | 23 September 1941 |
| Parties | BRONSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Bryan Simpson judge.
M. H Myers and George E. Turner, both of Jacksonville, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., Nathan Cockrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sidney L. Segall and Woodrow M. Melvin, Sp. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
An information filed May 27, 1940, in the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County by the County Solicitor charges under Section 5 Chapter 19301, Acts of 1939, that in Duval County, on May 25 1940, Odester Bronson '* * * did then and there unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession within the State of Florida a beverage containing more than one percent (1%) of alcohol by weight, to-wit: five gallons (5) of moonshine whiskey, a better and more particular description of which said moonshine whiskey is to the County Solicitor unknown, on which a Florida Excise stamp tax was required to be paid and on which said alcoholic beverage such Florida excise stamp tax had not been paid and no Florida excise liquor stamp was affixed to the immediate container in which said moonshine whiskey was contained.' A plea of not guilty was filed. On July 8, 1940 the following proceedings were had:
'Comes now the defendant, Odester Bronson, in proper person, and in open Court by leave of the Court withdraws Plea of Not Guilty and pleads Guilty.
'Now again comes the defendant, Odester Bronson, in proper person Whereupon, It Is, Adjudged by the Court that said defendant is guilty of the offense of Possession of Liquor Without Paying Florida Excise Tax, as charged in the Information herein, and the said defendant being asked by the Court if he had anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced upon him and saying nothing sufficient; Therefore, It Is, Considered by the Court that the sentence in this cause be and the same is hereby suspended: And It Is, Further Considered by the Court that you, Odester Bronson, be paroled into the custody of the Probation Officer of this Court for the period of one year from this date.' On February 4, 1941, it was----
'Ordered by the Court that the Suspended Sentence and Probation period heretofore imposed on the defendant Odester Bronson, be and same is hereby Revoked and Set Aside; and It Is, Further Considered by the Court that you, Odester Bronson, be imprisoned in the County Jail of Duval County at hard labor for the period of six months from this date.'
Defendant appealed and contends:
(1) That the original judgment of July 8, 1940, is void for the following reasons:
'* * * (a) That said judgment and Sentence does not follow the language of the statutory law nor the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of this character.
'(b) That said Judgment and Sentence does not contain any judgment or sentence against the defendant named therein.
'(c) That the only Judgment and Sentence contained in said Order is that Judgment was suspended.
'(d) That it appears upon the face of said Order that the defendant named therein was not placed on probation but it affirmatively appears on the face of said Order that the defendant named therein was parolled into the custody of the Probation officer, and the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County has no authority to parole a defendant.
'(2) The Judgment and Sentence * * * made and entered on February 4, 1941 was an abuse of judicial discretion of said Trial Judge for the following reasons:
'(a) That said Order does not follow the original Order of July 8, 1940;
'(b) That although in and by the said Order of July 8, 1940 Appellant was parolled rolled into the custody of the Probation Officer of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Duval County Florida, for a period of one year, yet on February 4, 1941, such parole or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernhardt v. State
...to his discretion to grant probation, the trial judge has certain broad discretionary power to revoke probation. Bronson v. State, 148 Fla. 188, 3 So.2d 873 (Fla.1941); Brill v. State, supra; State v. Cochran, supra; Manning v. United States, 161 F.2d 827 (5 Cir. 1947); Martin v. State, 243......
-
Lawson v. State
...conditions of the probation have been violated, and, therefore, whether the revocation of probation is in order."); Bronson v. State, 148 Fla. 188, 3 So.2d 873, 874 (1941). As we noted in Cochran, the discretion to revoke probation "is necessarily broad and extensive in order that the inter......
-
Cuciak v. State
...to probation revocation proceedings. Though a trial court has broad discretionary power to revoke probation, Bronson v. State, 148 Fla. 188, 3 So.2d 873 (Fla.1941), this discretion must be exercised in accordance with due process requirements. Richardson merely assures compliance with this ......
-
Stafford v. State
...of his probation in a material respect, the power to revoke probation is an inherent power of the trial court, Bronson v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 188, 3 So.2d 873, which may be exercised at anytime [sic] upon the court determining that the probationer has violated the law. State ex rel. Rober......