Buchanan v. State ex rel. Morris, 63-909
| Decision Date | 25 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-909,63-909 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | T. A. BUCHANAN, Sheriff of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Morgan D. MORRIS, Appellee. |
Prebish & Gautier, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
The appellant, Sheriff of Dade County, was the respondent below in habeas corpus proceedings and seeks to review a final order of the circuit court which granted the petition for habeas corpus and ordered the discharge of relator-appellee.
The facts of this case are not substantially in dispute. On March 30, 1963, the appellee was arrested without a warrant by a Metro police officer on the advice of one Bullock, a Metro fireman, and charged with the following offenses: (1) careless driving; (2) no driver's license; and (3) driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. Thereafter, prior to the appellee's arraignment on the above charges, appellee entered a 'special appearance' before the Metro court on the aforesaid charges and moved to dismiss the complaints and the summonses filed therein on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction over his person; that his arrest was illegal; and that the charged traffic violations were not committed in the presence of the arresting officer. § 901.15(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This motion was subsequently denied by the Metro court and the appellee entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. On September 10, 1963, an assistant state's attorney by sworn affidavit and complaint charged appellee with being a second offender and an arrest warrant pursuant thereto was issued and the appellee was arrested. At the time of trial appellee entered a plea of not guilty to the complaint, was tried by a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to serve six months in jail and ordered to pay a fine of $500.
Subsequent to his conviction, appellee filed a petition for habeas corpus in the circuit court. In the petition, appellee again asserted the illegality of the arrest and averred that the Metro court was without jurisdiction over his person. The writ issued. Appellant filed a motion to quash the writ and to dismiss the petition, along with a return to the writ. After hearing thereon, the circuit court entered an order which granted appellee's petition and ordered his discharge. This order, inter alia, found (1) that the original arrest was illegal; (2) that illegality of the arrest was properly and timely challenged in the trial court; (3) that the affidavit executed by the assistant state attorney was insufficient as a matter of law as it was not based on the actual knowledge of the affiant; and (4) that it was error to charge the appellee (under the second affense statute) in one count. It is this order that the state has appealed.
The appellant has raised four points on appeal. We deem it necessary to discuss but two points. These are (1) whether the circuit court erred in discharging the appellee on the ground that he was illegally arrested; and (2) whether the circuit court erred in discharging the appellee on the ground that the affidavit and complaint were illegal and insufficient as a matter of law.
We pause here to discuss the method by which the judgment of conviction in the Metro court was challenged. Though jurisdiction of the person and subject matter are both subjects of inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings to determine the legality of petitioner's restraint, it is not a substitute for appeal and it cannot be invoked for use in correcting mere errors or irregularities in the proceedings of a trial court, no matter how flagrant, that are not jurisdictional and at most would render a judgment merely voidable. See 15 Fla.Jur., Habeas Corpus, § 20, P. 396, and cases cited therein.
In a habeas corpus proceeding to test the sufficiency of accusatory pleadings to support jurisdiction for the prosecution and conviction of the accused, the inquiry is limited to a determination of the question of whether the pleadings charged the accused with the commission of offenses which are within the jurisdiction of the trial court and which are rendered criminal by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Eason
...... 458 N.W.2d 17 . 435 Mich. 228 . PEOPLE of the State of Michigan Plaintiff-Appellant. . v. . Charles Edward ...Couture, 151 Conn. 213, 196 A.2d 113 (1963); Buchanan v. State ex rel Morris, 167 So.2d 43 (Fla.App., 1964); In ......
-
Foster v. Gilbert, Civ. No. 66-1381.
...Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94, 48 So. 632 (1909); State ex rel. Bernstein v. Buchanan, 172 So.2d 476 (Fla.App.1965); Buchanan v. State, 167 So.2d 43 (Fla.App.1964). And where a party is confined in jail under a commitment issued upon an affidavit charging an offense in positive terms, he may ......
-
State v. Bateman
...152 So.2d 754 (cert. denied, Fla.1963, 155 So.2d 693); State v. Fernandez, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 400; Burchanan v. State ex rel. Morris, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 43; Wyche v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 875, and remanded to the court below for disposition on the WALDEN, C.J., ANDREWS, J......
-
Ferenc v. Thursby, K--59
...legality of the arrest. A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for the adequate remedy of appeal. See Buchanan v. State ex rel. Morris, 167 So.2d 43 (Fla.App.3d 1964). The State's motion to quash this appeal is WIGGINTON, Chief Judge, CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur. ...