Chapman v. Lake
| Citation | 151 So. 399,112 Fla. 746 |
| Parties | CHAPMAN, Superintendent of State Prison v. LAKE. |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1932 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
On Rehearing November 16, 1933.
Error to Circuit Court, Union County; A. Z. Adkins, Judge.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Forrest Lake against L. F. Chapman, as Superintendent of the State Prison. To review a final order entered in such proceeding, respondent brings error.
Reversed.
On Rehearing.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., Roy Campbell, Asst Atty. Gen., and A. S. Crews, State Atty., of Starke, for plaintiff in error.
S. W Getzen, of Bushnell, and H. S. White, of Sanford, for defendant in error.
The writ of error herein was allowed and taken under the statute to a final order made in habeas corpus proceedings before the circuit judge in Union county, in which county the state prison is located. The court held the sentence of the petitioner to imprisonment in the state prison to be void; and ordered that the petitioner 'be taken before the Circuit Court in due course for a proper sentence.'
The petitioner was convicted in the circuit court for Seminole county, and sentenced to 'be confined at hard labor in the State Prison of the State of Florida, for and during the period of three years.'
The statute provides that every person who violates its provisions 'shall be deemed guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years.' Section 7251 (5150), Compiled General Laws.
It is contended that, as the statute does not specifically state that the imprisonment shall be in the state prison or state penitentiary, the imprisonment should be in the county jail. Walden v. State, 50 Fla. 151, 39 So. 151, is relied upon. In that case the statute provided for punishment 'by imprisonment not more than 10 years, or by fine not exceeding $2,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.' Section 1, c. 4965, Acts of 1901. The statute there did not make the offense a felony, and did not provide for imprisonment in either the state penitentiary or in the county jail; therefore section 7103 (5004), Compiled General Laws, required the imprisonment to be in county jail as for a misdemeanor, and not in the state prison as for a felony.
The Constitution provides that 'the term felony, whenever it may occur in this Constitution or in the laws of the State, shall be construed to mean any criminal offence punishable with death or imprisonment in the State penitentiary.' Section 25, art. 16.
The statutes contain the following:
'Whenever punishment by imprisonment is prescribed, and the said imprisonment is not expressly directed to be in the State prison, it shall be taken and held to be imprisonment in the county jail, and whenever the punishment is prescribed to be fine or imprisonment (whether in the State prison or county jail), in the alternative, the court may, in its discretion, proceed to punish by both fine and such imprisonment.' Section 7103 (5004), Compiled General Laws.
Section 7105 (5006), Compiled General Laws.
In this case the statute expressly provides that every person violating the section 'shall be deemed guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years.' As under the Constitution the term 'felony' shall be construed to mean any criminal offense punishable with death or imprisonment in the state penitentiary, and as under section 7105 (5006), Compiled General Laws, a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison is a felony, section 7251 (5150), Compiled General Laws, in making the offense a felony followed by the imposition of a penalty of 'imprisonment for not more than ten years,' necessarily means imprisonment in the state penitentiary as for a felony and not imprisonment in the county jail as for a misdemeanor; and section 7103 (5004), Compiled General Laws, is not controlling as it was in the Walden Case, supra.
If under section 25, article 16, of the Constitution, a felony is any criminal offense punishable with death or imprisonment in the state penitentiary, then under section 7105 (5006), Compiled General Laws, any criminal offense punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison is a felony; and, if an offense is by statute made a felony, it is 'punishable' by death or imprisonment in the state penitentiary; and, when a criminal offense is made a felony by statute, and the period of imprisonment is fixed by statute without stating the place of imprisonment, it means imprisonment in the state penitentiary. This is the necessary effect of section 25, article 16, of the Constitution, and of section 7105 (5006), Compiled General Laws, upon the provision for imprisonment contained in section 7251 (5150), Compiled General Laws, under which the defendant in error was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison.
Reversed.
DAVIS, J., disqualified.
On Rehearing.
The writ of error in this case was taken to a final order made in habeas corpus proceedings by the circuit judge in Union county, where the state prison is located, and in which institution the defendant in error was then confined, under a sentence of imprisonment in the state prison. In the habeas corpus proceedings the said sentence was held void, and it was ordered that petitioner 'be taken before the Circuit Court in due course for a proper sentence under the conviction of aiding and abetting in the making of false entries in bank book.' From this order plaintiff in error sued out a writ of error.
Defendant in error was convicted in the circuit court of Seminole county under an indictment charging him with aiding and abetting in the making of a false entry in the daybook of a bank, and was sentenced to 'be confined at hard labor in the State prison of the State of Florida for and during the period of three years.' The statute under which defendant in error was convicted provides that every person who violates its provisions 'shall be deemed guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years.' Section 7251 (5150), Compiled General Laws.
In an opinion heretofore filed herein in which three members of this court concurred, two dissenting and one being disqualified, the final order in the habeas corpus proceedings was reversed on the ground that as, under section 7251(5150), Compiled General Laws, the offense therein denounced was expressly termed and named 'a felony' and imposed a penalty of 'imprisonment for not more than ten years,' the place of imprisonment was necessarily in the state prison as for a felony, the Constitution providing in section 25, article 16, that 'the term felony, whenever it may occur in this Constitution or in the laws of the State, shall be construed to mean any criminal offence punishable with death or imprisonment in the State penitentiary.' We are now urged to review this holding.
The single proposition presented for determination in this case is: Does the fact that section 7251 (5150), Comp. Gen. Laws, in failing to designate in the clause providing for punishment for the infraction of said statute, that the place of imprisonment shall be, ipsissimis verbis 'in the State prison' for the prescribed term, bring the offense denounced within the class of crimes designated as misd meanors, or in the face of this omission may such offense nevertheless be held to be a felony?
Section 25, art. 16, of the Constitution, provides that 'the term felony, whenever it may occur in this Constitution or in the laws of the State, shall be construed to mean any criminal offence punishable' by imprisonment in the state penitentiary.
Section 7103 (5004), Comp. Gen. Laws, provides that: 'Whenever punishment by imprisonment is prescribed, and the said imprisonment is not expressly directed to be in the State prison, it shall be taken and held to be imprisonment in the county jail, and whenever the punishment is prescribed to be fine or imprisonment (whether in the State prison or county jail), in the alternative, the court may, in its discretion, proceed to punish by both fine and such imprisonment.'
Section 7105 (5006), Comp. Gen. Laws, provides that:
As under our system of laws, aside from treason, there are but two general classes of offenses, felonies and misdemeanors, it is contended that, under the statutory and constitutional provisions, above cited, it is an essential requisite to constitute a crime a felony that the statute creating the offense shall provide that the punishment for the violation thereof shall be imprisonment, in so many words, 'in the State prison,' and, failing therein, the legislative designation of the class of the offense is without effect, meaningless and void, it being asserted that it is not the mere name of the crime that characterizes its grade, but the punishment therefor.
It may be stated, as an accepted general proposition of law, that the Legislature, within constitutional limitations, has the inherent power to prohibit and punish any act as a crime, and, having the power to create and punish an offense, can there be any doubt that it has power also to fix the grade or class of the offense?
The common-law definition of the word 'felony' is not applicable in this state, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marrero v. State
...561–62 (Fla.1999) (citing Perkins v. State, 682 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1996); State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1995); Chapman v. Lake, 112 Fla. 746, 151 So. 399 (1932)). The absence of any qualification whatsoever in the criminal mischief statute, however, reinforces the premise that the Sta......
-
Marrero v. State
...561-62 (Fla. 1999) (citing Perkins v. State, 682 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1996); State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995); Chapman v.Lake, 151 So. 399 (Fla. 1932)). The absence of any qualification whatsoever in the criminal mischief statute, however, reinforces the premise that the State mu......
-
State v. Hubbard
...elements of a crime. See Perkins v. State, 682 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1996); State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1995); Chapman v. Lake, 112 Fla. 746, 151 So. 399 (1932). While manslaughter was recognized as a common law crime in England as early as the 1600s, see Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. S......
-
Brown v. State
...of imprisonment might also have been authorized as an alternative. Cf. State v. Fitz, Fla.1967, 202 So.2d 841 and Chapman v. Lake, 1933, 112 Fla. 746, 151 So. 399, 402. See also Tidwell v. Circuit Court, 1942, 151 Fla. 333, 9 So.2d 630; Cox v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 823; and Griffin......