Mayo v. Lukers

Decision Date03 August 1951
Citation53 So.2d 916
PartiesMAYO v. LUCKERS.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen. and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Ray Sandstrom and Erle L. Griffis, Macclenny, for appellee.

CHAPMAN, Justice.

On September 29, 1945, J. W. Lukers was convicted in the Court of Record of Escambia County, Florida, of the crime grand larceny and sentenced to serve a period of four years at hard labor in Florida State Prison. Lukers perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Florida and did not actually begin the service of his four year term of imprisonment at the Florida State Prison until August 10, 1946, where he continued to remain in custody and serve his sentence until the 6th day of January, 1948, when the Florida Parole Commission released him from custody, conditioned on good behavior.

The record discloses that Lukers was taken into custody on the charge or charges that he had violated some of the conditions or provisions of his parole, and a hearing was given him by the Parole Commission on the question of whether or not he had violated the conditions or provisions of the parole under which he was released from prison. As a result of the hearing the conclusion was reached that Lukers had violated the terms and conditions of his parole: (1) by the excessive use of intoxicants on August 12, 1949; (2) on August 14, 1949, by becoming intoxicated and assaulting his wife; and (3) by giving worthless checks on May 17, 1950, and, accordingly, on June 9, 1950, an order was entered by the Parole Commission revoking the parole previously issued and Lukers was returned to the State Prison to serve the unexpired portion of his four year sentence.

Lukers filed in the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and represented that he was unlawfully restrained and deprived of his liberties by the Honorable Nathan Mayo, as Custodian of Convicts of the State of Florida. It was further contended that the Florida Parole Commission was without legal authority to enter its order dated June 9, 1950, which revoked petitioner's parole, cause his rearrest and thereafter return him to the State Prison to serve the unexpired time of his four year sentence.

The writ issued as prayed for, a hearing was had, and the lower Court held that Lukers was entitled to credit on his four year sentence for the period of time he was at large on parole before his parole was revoked; also the time Lukers served in the State Prison, plus the time he was out on parole, was legally sufficient to fully complete the service of the four year sentence imposed by the Court of Record of Escambia County, Florida. An order was entered permitting an appeal by the State of Florida from the order of discharge to the Supreme Court of Florida. The petitioner began the service of his four year sentence on August 10, 1946, and the order of discharge is dated May 2, 1951. The petitioner served from August 10, 1946, continuously until January 6, 1948, and from June 9, 1950, until May 2, 1951, approximately 27 months and 20 days of a 48 months sentence.

It was the trial Court's view and conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to gain time credits viz.: (1) on the period of time from August 10, 1946, until released on parole on January 6, 1948; (2) during the period the petitioner was at large on parole from January 6, 1948, until the date of the revocation order entered by the Parole Commission on June 9, 1950; and (3) the aggregate of the gain time credits supra, coupled with the time actually served in the State Prison, were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Harris v. Wainwright
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 1, 1979
    ...until January 1, 1979, and thereafter computed pursuant to the provision of section 944.275, Florida Statutes (1978). Mayo v. Lukers, 53 So.2d 916 (Fla.1951) recognizes that the right to gain time is not a vested one and that it is obviously dependent on the course of the conduct of the inm......
  • Simmons v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 10, 1969
    ...the existing laws of this State we cannot find that appellant is entitled to credit for the time he was out on parole. In Mayo v. Lukers, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 916, it is 'It was not the intention of the Legislature by the enactment of Section 947.21 to confer on the Parole Commission the powe......
  • Gibbs v. Wainwright, 74--812
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 25, 1974
    ...consistently held that a parolee whose parole had been revoked was not entitled to credit for time when he was on parole. Mayo v. Lukers, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 916; Deese v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 139 So.2d 429; Porter v. State, Fla.App.1st, 1968, 212 So.2d 828. See also Starnes v. Connett, 5th Ci......
  • Porter v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 1968
    ...served since revocation of parole, to work a service of both sentences.' Of the same effect are the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo v. Lukers, 3 and Sheppard v. Mayo. Petitioner concedes that the law of Florida will not support his position, but contends that the rule adopted by the ......

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