Reynolds v. Cochran, No. 29838
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | ROBERTS |
| Citation | 138 So.2d 500 |
| Parties | Stephen Franklin REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. H. G. COCHRAN, Jr., Director of Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 29838 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1962 |
Page 500
v.
H. G. COCHRAN, Jr., Director of Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.
Rehearing Denied March 28, 1962.
Page 501
Claude Pepper and Claude Pepper Law Offices, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
ROBERTS, Chief Justice.
Pursuant to a mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States we issued a writ of habeas corpus, required a return and on the basis of the same referred the cause to a commissioner of this court for a hearing upon the factual issues. See Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U.S. 525, 81 S.Ct. 723, 5 L.Ed.2d 754. Pending final decision the petitioner was released on bail.
Our commissioner has finished his assignment and we now have before us his findings and recommendations based upon the testimony of all the parties involved, including the petitioner.
The record discloses that on May 10, 1956, petitioner was convicted of the crime of grand larceny and sentenced to serve two years in prison. On December 1, 1957, with credit for gain time, the petitioner was discharged from custody, his sentence being considered completed. Some two months after his discharge, petitioner was arrested and informed against as a second offender. Said information referred to two previous convictions of the petitioner, one being the 1956 grand larceny conviction, and the other a 1934 conviction of the crime of robbery.
As a result of the aforesaid information and the proceedings before the Criminal Court of Record of Polk County, on February 20, 1958, petitioner was found guilty of the offense of 'Second Offender,' and was sentenced to confinement in the State Prison of Florida at hard labor for a term of ten years.
On August 25, 1958, the petitioner was again brought before the Criminal Court of Record of Polk County, which entered an order purporting to set aside and cancel the judgment of February 20, 1958. In the latter judgment the petitioner was sentenced to ten years' confinement with credit to be given for all time served pursuant to the grand larceny sentence of May 10, 1956, and the sentence of February 20, 1958.
In his petition for writ of habeas corpus directed to this court and his petition for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States, the petitioner, among other things, contends that he was denied the right to counsel and that the Criminal Court of Record at the hearing held on February 20, 1958, refused his oral motion for a continuance and thus denied him the assistance of the attorney he had retained in the proceeding against him. However, our commissioner has found, as a matter of fact, that the alleged remarks by the trial court, referring to the petitioner's lack of need of counsel, were never made. The testimony of the petitioner himself supports this finding. Further, the commissioner found that the petitioner never requested a continuance in order that his counsel
Page 502
might arrive and that, in fact, testimony of the attorney in question discloses that the alleged employment never took place. Finally, the commissioner found that the Criminal Court of Record did not comply with all of the procedural requirements of F.S. § 775.11, F.S.A., of our Habitual Offenders law.From the view we take of the issues presently before us, it is unnecessary to detail the trial court's deviations from the requirements of F.S. § 775.11, F.S.A. However, we remind those concerned with the administration of the Habitual Offenders statutes that the provisions of the same must be strictly complied with because of the highly penal nature of said laws
The statutes herein involved are §§ 775.09 and 775.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. They read as follows:
'775.09 Punishment for second conviction of felony.--A person who, after having been convicted within this state of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony, or under the laws of any other state, government or country, of a crime which, if committed within this state would be a felony, commits any felony within this state is punishable upon conviction of such second offense as follows: If the subsequent felony is such that upon a first conviction the offender would be punishable by imprisonment for any term less than his natural life then such person must be sentenced to imprisonment for a term no less than the longest term nor more than twice the longest term prescribed upon a first conviction. If the subsequent felony is such that upon a first conviction the offender would be punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of years, in the alternative, then such person must be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for any number of years not less than twenty years.
* * *
* * *
'775.11 Procedure in prosecutions for second and subsequent offenses.--If at any time after sentence or conviction it shall appear that a person convicted of a felony has previously been convicted of crimes as set forth either in § 775.09 or § 775.10 the prosecuting attorney of the county in which such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. State, No. 74
...of recidivist statutes against ex post facto challenges. See Cornwell v. United States, 451 A.2d 628 (D.C.App.1982); Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So.2d 500 (Fla.1962); Collins v. State, 275 Ind. 86, 415 N.E.2d 46 (1981); State v. Williams, 358 So.2d 943 (La.1978); State v. Vainio, 466 A.2d 471 ......
-
Tyson v. Hening, No. 5809
...684. Recidivist statutes do not involve 'an accusation of a crime' nor do they 'create a separate offense', Reynolds v. Cochran, Fla., 138 So.2d 500, 503 (reversed and remanded on other grounds, 365 U.S. 525, 81 S.Ct. 723, 5 L.ed.2d 754). By enactment of § 53-296, our legislature has not de......
-
State v. Gaddy, No. 11283
...e.g., State v. Baros, 78 N.M. 623, 435 P.2d 1005 (1968) (cited heavily by the March opinion for this proposition); Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So.2d 500 (Fla.1962) (defendant completely served the underlying sentence, and the trial court thus had no power to enhance his sentence under the Flor......
-
State ex rel. Williams v. Henderson, No. 54061
...charge. E.g. Del.Code Ann. 11 § 3912; N.J.Stat.Ann. Section 2A:85--13; W.Va.Code Ann. Section 61--11--18, 19. In Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So.2d 500 (Fla.1962), that court interpreting a statute similar to ours 'The statutory language used to accomplish this result reads as follows: "If at a......
-
Hawkins v. State, No. 74
...of recidivist statutes against ex post facto challenges. See Cornwell v. United States, 451 A.2d 628 (D.C.App.1982); Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So.2d 500 (Fla.1962); Collins v. State, 275 Ind. 86, 415 N.E.2d 46 (1981); State v. Williams, 358 So.2d 943 (La.1978); State v. Vainio, 466 A.2d 471 ......
-
Tyson v. Hening, No. 5809
...684. Recidivist statutes do not involve 'an accusation of a crime' nor do they 'create a separate offense', Reynolds v. Cochran, Fla., 138 So.2d 500, 503 (reversed and remanded on other grounds, 365 U.S. 525, 81 S.Ct. 723, 5 L.ed.2d 754). By enactment of § 53-296, our legislature has not de......
-
State v. Gaddy, No. 11283
...e.g., State v. Baros, 78 N.M. 623, 435 P.2d 1005 (1968) (cited heavily by the March opinion for this proposition); Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So.2d 500 (Fla.1962) (defendant completely served the underlying sentence, and the trial court thus had no power to enhance his sentence under the Flor......
-
State ex rel. Williams v. Henderson, No. 54061
...charge. E.g. Del.Code Ann. 11 § 3912; N.J.Stat.Ann. Section 2A:85--13; W.Va.Code Ann. Section 61--11--18, 19. In Reynolds v. Cochran, 138 So.2d 500 (Fla.1962), that court interpreting a statute similar to ours 'The statutory language used to accomplish this result reads as follows: "If at a......