Jones v. Mayo

Decision Date02 November 1949
Citation86 F. Supp. 849
PartiesJONES v. MAYO et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

Michael C. Jones, pro se.

Reeves Bowen, Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for respondents.

DE VANE, District Judge.

Petitioner has filed herein a petition for writ of habeas corpus against Nathan Mayo, as custodian of Florida State Prison and L. F. Chapman, as superintendent of said prison, alleging that he is being held in violation of his constitutional rights both State and Federal and that he has been deprived of his constitutional liberties guaranteed under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Petitioner was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, Florida on March 19, 1935 on the second count of an information in which second count petitioner was charged as principal in the second degree with the crime of armed robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal was taken and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Florida in Jones v. State, 122 Fla. 307, 165 So. 33 and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States in 297 U.S. 717, 56 S.Ct. 596, 80 L. Ed. 1002.

After exhausting all remedies for a reversal of his conviction petitioner filed in the Supreme Court of Florida an application for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was denied in Jones v. State, 130 Fla. 645, 178 So. 404. Thereafter petitioner filed in the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida his petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking his release, which was denied by the Judge of that court and on appeal the judgment was affirmed in Jones v. Mayo et al., 139 Fla. 400, 190 So. 615, and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States in State ex rel. Jones v. Mayo, 299 U.S. 614, 57 S.Ct. 319, 81 L.Ed. 453. This last case was decided by the Supreme Court of Florida on July 21, 1939.

As far as the record in this case shows petitioner has never heretofore filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court and his reason for doing so now is evidently prompted by language used by this court in denying petitions for writs of habeas corpus in Chancey v. Mayo and three companion cases, decided December 17, 1948. In those cases, referring to Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672, 68 S.Ct. 1270, 92 L.Ed. 1647, the court said: "There must be some orderly procedure established in these habeas corpus cases filed by State prisoners. In the opinion of this court these cases are illustrative of the orderly procedure that should be adhered to and followed. Where petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed in the State courts are denied without hearing, petitioners should have the right to come immediately to Federal District courts where they may again endeavor to secure a hearing on their petitions and where they will be granted a hearing, if the allegations of their petitions are sufficient to warrant it. However, in those cases where a State court grants a writ, holds...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Jones v. Mayo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 13, 1949
    ...Florida State Prison. DE VANE, District Judge. Since the entry of the Order denying petition for writ of habeas corpus herein on November 2, 1949, 86 F.Supp. 849, petitioner has filed a motion to amend the original petition in certain particulars and a petition for rehearing. The motion to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT