Henderson v. State
| Decision Date | 17 March 1908 |
| Citation | 46 So. 151,55 Fla. 36 |
| Parties | HENDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; John S. Maxwell Judge.
Alex Henderson was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Motions in arrest of judgment can be predicated only upon matters of record in the cause, and reach only infirmities in such record.
If, on a trial of the defendant upon an information charging larceny as a second offense, a conditional pardon from the first offense can avail the defendant as a defense to any extent it constitutes a defense simply in mitigation of the penalty to be imposed on conviction of the second offense, and to avail the defendant as such mitigation of the penalty it should be proven at the trial for such second offense. It is too late to bring it forward for the first time after verdict in a motion for new trial, especially so when the information upon which he is tried alleges such former conviction and that the crime it charges is a second offense.
Where a convict has accepted a conditional pardon and has been released from imprisonment by virtue thereof, but has violated or failed to perform the conditions or any of them the pardon, in case of a condition precedent, does not take effect, and, in case of a condition subsequent, becomes void and the convict may thereupon be rearrested and compelled to undergo the punishment imposed by his original sentence, or as much thereof as he had not suffered at the time of his release.
Where one of the conditions of a pardon of a convict for the crime of larceny is that he should thereafter during the term of his natural life lead a law-abiding life, and such convict is subsequently tried and convicted of a second larceny, such subsequent conviction is the most conclusive evidence of the violation of such condition in such pardon, and that the same was thereby annulled and rendered void and of no further force or effect for any purpose. Under these circumstances such a conditional pardon could not avail the defendant for any purpose or to any extent upon his trial for such subsequent second offense, either as ground for a new trial or otherwise.
Where a conditional pardon of a convict stipulates that the pardoning board or the Governor, upon being made satisfied ex parte of a breach of its conditions, might declare it to be void and order the convict's rearrest and imprisonment on the original sentence, such stipulation, while valid and binding on the convict, if accepted by him, does not furnish the exclusive method of adjudging a breach of such pardon and its consequent annulment. Any court of competent jurisdiction, notwithstanding such stipulation, may likewise inquire into any alleged breach thereof, and may annul it if satisfied of such breach.
On a trial under an information charging larceny and that it was a second offense, the following verdict: 'We the jury find the defendant guilty of 2nd larceny'--held to be sufficient to support a judgment of conviction and sentence for the crime of larceny as a second offense of larceny.
COUNSEL Walter M. Davis, for plaintiff in error.
The plaintiff in error, as defendant below, was informed against in the criminal court of record of Duval county for the crime of larceny; the information also alleging a former conviction of the same crime in the same court. At the trial the following verdict was returned by the jury: 'We the jury find the defendant guilty of 2nd larceny.' Upon this verdict the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years, and for a review of this judgment brings his case here by writ of error.
The only error urged and argued here is that the court below erred in not granting the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vogel v. State
... ... If ... there is any defect in the verdict, it is a matter which ... appears on the face of the record and should have been ... attacked by a motion in arrest of judgment. See Ball ... Bros. v. Holland, 76 Fla. 268, 79 So. 635; Lewis v ... State, 87 Fla. 37, 98 So. 917; Henderson v ... State, 55 Fla. 36, 46 So. 151; Caldwell v ... People's Bank of Sanford, 73 Fla. 1165, 75 So. 848; ... Golding v. State, 31 Fla. 262, 12 So. 525; Lake ... v. State, 100 Fla. 373, 129 So. 827, 131 So. 147; ... Ephriam v. State, 82 Fla. 93, 89 So. 344; Taylor ... v. State, 88 Fla. 555, ... ...
-
U.S. v. Matassini
...rights of citizenship have been restored by a full pardon. See State v. Snyder, 136 Fla. 875, 187 So. 381 (1939); cf. Henderson v. State, 55 Fla. 36, 46 So. 151 (1908). The court explicitly considered these precedents in Fields, supra, and found them not to be controlling in a criminal case......
-
Jamison v. Flanner
...where a pardon had been issued for the first offense (Tucker v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 54; Edwards v. The Commonwealth, 78 Va. 39; Henderson v. State, 55 Fla. 36; Mount Commonwealth, 63 Ky. 93; People v. M'Intyre, 163 N.Y.S. 528); in a suit for divorce where the conviction of a felony is made ......
-
Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Reid
... ... 83 Miss. 564, 35 So. 764, have no sort of application to the ... case at bar. In that case the lady who was travelling from ... Henderson, Kentucky, to Water Valley, Mississippi, wanted to ... go by a particular route. The company had two routes by which ... she could go and by the ... at Magnolia; that there had been litigation about this, and a ... contest before the state railroad commission, etc. We say ... nothing as to all this. It seems to us to be utterly ... immaterial, in any view, for the proper decision of ... ...