Chapman v. Parrish

• Decision Date: 26 April 1934
• Citation: 154 So. 334,114 Fla. 612
• Parties: CHAPMAN, Prison Farm Superintendent v. PARRISH.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

154 So. 334

114 Fla. 612

CHAPMAN, Prison Farm Superintendent v. PARRISH.

Florida Supreme Court

April 26, 1934

En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Union County; A. Z. Atkins, Judge.

Proceeding by T. J. Parrish for a writ of habeas corpus to L. F Chapman, as Superintendent of the Florida State Prison Farm. To review a judgment discharging petitioner from respondent's custody, respondent brings error.

Reversed with directions.

COUNSEL Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

The writ of error in this case is to review the judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding wherby the petitioner was discharged from custody.

The contention of the petitioner was that he had never been adjudicated guilty of the offense for which he was tried and convicted. The judgment in that case was affirmed in this court. See Parrish v. State, 105 Fla. 430, 141 So 314. The judgment of the court was as follows, to wit:

'Now on this day came in person the defendant T. J. Parrish in open court, and being asked by the Court whether he had anything to say why sentence of the law should not be pronounced upon him, says nothing. It is, therefore, the judgment, order and sentence of the Court that you, T. J. Parrish, for the crime of which you have been and stand convicted, be imprisoned for Two Years in the State Penitentiary from the date of your delivery to the officers thereof and costs of court or serve an additional 3 months to start at expiration of first sentence.'

In Anderson v. Chapman, opinion filed March 13, 1933, 146 So. 675, 677, we said:

'In the present case the alleged judgment and sentence imposed reads as follows:

"State of Florida v. J. C. Anderson

"Now on this day came in person the defendant, J. C. Anderson, into open court after being duly arraigned entered his plea of guilty to robbery, the charge contained in the information filed herein against him. And being asked by the Court whether or not he had anything to say why sentence of the law should not now be pronounced upon him, say nothing.

"It is therefore considered by the Court that you, J. C. Anderson, for the crime of which you have been and stand convicted, do be imprisoned by confinement at hard labor in the State Prison for a period of ten (10) years.'

'While such a judgment entry may be fatally defective because it does not clearly adjudicate the defendant's guilt, nevertheless it does recite the fact that with the approval of the court the defendant has been and stands convicted of the described crime of robbery, the charge contained in the information filed against him. Such a recital to the effect that the accused 'stands convicted' implies an adjudication of guilt (See Ex parte McDaniel, 86 Fla. 145, 97 So. 317) by way of inference, and though not sufficient to stand against

...