Chambers v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1933 |
| Citation | 151 So. 499,111 Fla. 707 |
| Parties | CHAMBERS et al. v. STATE.[*] |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Broward County; George W. Tedder, Judge.
Isiah (Izell) Chambers, Jack Williamson, Charlie Davis, and Walter Woodward (Woodard) were convicted of first-degree murder, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL D. W. Perkins, of Jacksonville, for plaintiffs in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
On August 4, 1933, Isiah Chambers, Jack Williamson, Charlie Davis, and Walter Woodard, alleging themselves to be held in custody of L. F. Chapman, superintendent of the State Prison, under death warrants issued by the Governor for their execution for the capital crime of murder in the first degree, and that they were then about to be forthwith put to death in the electric chair for said crime, presented to this court through their attorney, one D. W. Perkins, a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking avoidances of the death sentences, on the ground of alleged invalidity of the trials and hearings upon which the accused were severally adjudged guilty and sentenced.
This court refused to entertain the petition for habeas corpus but did, upon praecipe of counsel, issue its writ of error from this court directed to the circuit court, and at the same time entered its order directing a stay of execution of the sentences of death, until the transcript of the record could be brought here in due course pursuant to the writ of error and the case considered by this court thereon.
The writ of error was made returnable on October 29, 1933.
On the return day a thirty days' extension of time to complete the record was granted upon request of the counsel of record for the accused. No transcript of the record having been filed here by either of the plaintiffs in error on the extended return day which was November 28, 1933, the state's attorney, Hon. Louis F. Maire, who prosecuted the cases in the court below, has caused to be prepared and filed in this court, duly certified by the clerk of the circuit court, a complete transcript of the record of the convictions complained of, together with the writ of error and notice thereof which was duly recorded and served upon the state's attorney and Attorney General, as required by the statute in criminal cases.
The case is now before us for consideration on the transcript of the record alone, the appeal apparently having been abandoned by counsel for the plaintiffs in error who has failed to pursue the steps or file the papers required by the rules of this court to perfect their appeals according to the prescribed practice.
Ordinarily dismissal of the writ of error is the only penalty visited on plaintiffs in error in this court for failing to comply with the rules prescribed for the orderly presentation of appellate controversies. But in this case the plaintiffs in error stand convicted of murder in the first degree. At the time writ of error was applied for, death warrants had already been issued for their execution, and the penalty of the law was about to be exacted. Consequently, when the writ of error was sought here and ordered to be issued for the benefit of plaintiffs in error, on praecipe of their counsel, writ of error was issued as process of this court as a matter of right issuable on demand. In response to that writ of error the complete transcript of the record has been prepared and filed in this court for our consideration.
In Owen v. State, 58 Fla. 84, 50 So. 639, it was held that where a transcript of the record proper in a criminal case has been brought to this court on writ of error taken by a convicted defendant, and it is made to appear thereby that no bill of exceptions was made up and authenticated in the cause, the Supreme Court may, upon motion of the representative of the state (and will as a general rule upon such motion), affirm the judgments appealed from if, upon a careful consideration of the transcript of the record proper brought here in response to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hysler v. State of Florida
...are true. The determination of such question may be had in the circuit court under issues duly made for that purpose.' 111 Fla. 707, 713, 151 So. 499, 152 So. It must also be borne in mind that if the proof accompanying a petition for leave to apply for a writ of error coram nobis had to be......
-
Dantzic v. State
...leave to file a petition for writ of error Coram nobis in the Circuit Court of Broward County. In an earlier decision, Chambers v. State, 111 Fla. 707, 151 So. 499 (1933), the Supreme Court of Florida had affirmed on direct appeal the petitioner's conviction and sentence for first degree Th......
-
Chambers v. State
...on petition for leave to apply to the trial court for writ of error coram nobis, this court speaking through Mr. Justice Buford (111 Fla. 707, 717, 151 So. 499, 152 So. 437, said: 'It is true that the record and stenographer's report of the testimony taken at the trials, which are made a pa......
-
Chambers v. State
...The first case affirmed the conviction of first-degree murder and the sentence of death imposed by the lower court. Chambers et al. v. State, 111 Fla. 707, 151 So. 499. The second case was Chambers et al. v. State, Fla. 712, 113 Fla. 786, 152 So. 437, 439. In that decision the court passed ......