Child v. Wainwright, 31937
| Decision Date | 07 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 31937,31937 |
| Parties | Francis Washburn CHILD, Petitioner, v. Louie L WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Francis Washburn Child, petitioner, in pro. per.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Francis Washburn Child petitioned this Court for writ of habeas corpus, which we issued. Respondent made his return and petitioner has filed a traverse to the return.
On December 29, 1961 a deputy sheriff who was investigating a case of breaking and entering and larceny contacted petitioner and asked him to come to the sheriff's office for questioning. Petitioner did so and on being questioned he admitted having committed the subject crime on December 19, 1961 and surrendered the stolen goods. He was jailed and subsequently was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, petit larceny. Subsequently, through a Public Defender of Broward County, he entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of entering without breaking with intent to commit a misdemeanor, petit larceny.
This plea was accepted by the trial court. Petitioner was adjudged guilty and sentenced to fifteen months in the State Prison, where he is now held.
The sum of petitioner's contentions is that (a) he was temporarily insane at the time he committed the crime and thereafter, including the time of entry of the plea of nolo contendere; (b) the trial court was on notice of his unstable mental condition but did not inquire into it as provided in Sec. 917.01, F.S.A.; and (c) the Public Defender who purportedly represented petitioner did not confer with him either before or during the court proceedings as to his legal rights, his mental condition, or the plea which was entered for him, and did not advise the court of his 'unstable' mental condition, although petitioner wrote him a letter asking that he do so.
Petitioner takes the position that this Court ought to be required to prove that he was sane during the pertinent period. He alleges that he can prove that he was temporarily insane during such time.
We point out here that while Sec. 917.01 F.S.A. requires the trial court to inquire into the sanity of a defendant when reasonable ground therefor is shown to exist, this does not place on the State the burden of proving the sanity of a defendant. A defendant is presumed sane and in the absence of circumstances which require the court to inquire as to his sanity the burden is one the defendant to show his insanity. In this cause the burden is therefore on the petitioner.
In his return he respondent, in effect, says that he has no knowledge of petitioner's mental condition during the time here involved, has no knowledge of whether the trial court was advised of petitioner's prior mental condition, and has no knowledge of whether the Public Defender conferred with petitioner as alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...and appoints experts to examine Defendant places no burden on the State of proving the sanity of the Defendant. See Child v. Wainwright, 148 So.2d 526 (Fla.1963). The report on the Defendant's sanity by a psychiatrist or other expert is merely advisory to the Court, which itself retains the......
-
Byrd v. State, 41452
...227 So.2d 60 (Fla.App.2d 1969); Brady v. State, 190 So.2d 607 (Fla.App.3d 1966); Byrd v. State, 178 So.2d 886 (Fla.App.2d 1965).3 148 So.2d 526 (Fla.1963).4 Id. at 527.5 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 279 (1903).6 97 So.2d 241 (Fla.1957).7 26 Fla. 11, 7 So. 593 (1890).8 254 So.2d 40 (Fla.App.2d 1971).......
-
Olsen v. State, 75--47
...Finally, defendant's sanity was determined by the court pursuant to CrPR 3.210(a). No abuse of discretion is shown. See Child v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 148 So.2d 526; and Brown v. State, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 68. Defendant seems to argue that because the State provided him with the means for h......
-
Sallee v. State
...the absence of a judicial determination to the contrary, Mr. Sallee is, was, and remains presumptively competent. Cf. Child v. Wainwright, 148 So.2d 526, 527 (Fla. 1963) ("A defendant is presumed sane...."); DeFriest v. State, 448 So.2d 1157, 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) ("There is a legal pres......