Norwood v. Mayo
| Decision Date | 23 July 1954 |
| Citation | 74 So.2d 370 |
| Parties | NORWOOD v. MAYO, State Prison Custodian. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
J. C. Adkins, Jr., Gainesville, for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is a case of original jurisdiction, upon petition for habeas corpus filed by Burl Norwood. We have issued the writ, to which a return has now been filed by respondent.
From the facts made out by the petition and return, Norwood was committed to respondent's custody on October 9, 1924, to serve a five year sentence for the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, imposded upon him by the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa County, Florida, acting by and through the Honorable A. G. Campbell, Circuit Judge. After escaping from the state prison three times for short periods, Norwood finally escaped on March 28, 1927, and was not returned to custody until February 28, 1947. This was as the result of having again been convicted, this time under both counts of an information which charged forgery in the first count and uttering a forged instrument in the second count, again in the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa County. On February 3, 1947, said court acting by the Honorable D. Stuart Gillis, Circuit Judge, who is not shown to have had any knowledge of Norwood's previous history and the part played in it by the same court, adjudged him guilty of both offenses charged and sentenced him to be confined in the state prison for two consecutive ten-year sentences, one on each count. When petitioner was received at the state prison on February 28, 1947, he was required first to serve the remainder of the five-year sentence of 1924, and upon the completion of this sentence on June 14, 1949, he was put to serving the consecutive ten-year sentences.
Petitioner first contends that he could not lawfully be required to complete the service of his five-year sentence before beginning the service of his first ten-year sentence, because these sentences (i. e., the five-year sentence and the first ten-year sentence) should have run concurrently. This contention is foreclosed by F.S. § 921.16, F.S.A., which provides in part that sentences for offenses not charged in the same information 'shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that they * * * be served concurrently.' No such express direction is contained in the sentence imposed by Judge Gillis in 1947, which was after the statute became effective. Even in the absence of the statute, however, the case of Lindsey v. Mayo, 153 Fla. 465, 14 So.2d 809, would be controlling. Although in that case the sentences were imposed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estevez v. State
...of the same statute) two separate and distinct crimes have occurred and each may be punished independent of the other. See Norwood v. Mayo, 74 So.2d 370 (Fla.1954). ...
-
Jenkins v. Wainwright
...violations of law even though all arose from a single criminal transaction or incident. This Court has previously held in Norwood v. Mayo, 74 So.2d 370 (Fla.1954), that the forging and uttering of a forged instrument are each separate offenses and approved the imposition of consecutive sent......
-
Orange v. State, 75--1175
...Steele v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 386 (grand larceny and breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny); Norwood v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 370 (the forging and the uttering of a forged instrument); Slater v. State, Fla.1975, 316 So.2d 539 (murder and robbery); Estevez v. Stat......
-
Johnson v. State
...offenses leading to two separate convictions and separate sentences. Cf. Estevez v. State, 313 So.2d 692 (Fla.1975); Norwood v. Mayo, 74 So.2d 370 (Fla.1954). See also United States v. Crew, 538 F.2d 575 (1976), in which the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, held that, under f......