Rodriguez v. State
| Decision Date | 13 April 1960 |
| Citation | 119 So.2d 681 |
| Parties | Joe RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, and H. G. Cochran, Jr., as Custodian of Florida State Prison, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
William T. Fussell, Tampa, for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In his petition for habeas corpus, Joe Rodriguez alleges that on 20 September 1956, he was 'convicted' of the crime of possessing narcotics and on 19 November 1956 was adjudged guilty of the offense. He states that on the latter date, the court sentenced him 'but said sentence was deferred from day to day and from term to term * * *.' The exhibit upon which he relies for the statement shows that he was adjudged guilty and that sentence was deferred, but it does not support the position that he was actually sentenced. From this ambiguous language, read in the light of the exhibit we conclude that the petitioner plead guilty, the court adjudged him guilty, and then postponed the imposition of any sentence.
The petitioner follows these representations with the strange assertion that he 'served under and continued to remain subject' to the deferred sentence from the date of conviction until 1 June 1959. Of course, he could not have been serving under a sentence that had not been imposed but the date he specifies introduces the reasoning he wishes this court to adopt in order to discharge him from custody. It was on this day, accordingly to the petition, that he was again brought before the court to face a second violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Law, F.S.A. § 398.01 et seq., of which he plead guilty. He tells this court that the court set aside the sentence 'previously announced' and inflicted a sentence of three years in the state penitentiary. He attempts to buttress his allegations with reference to the second feature of his petition with an exhibit which serves more to confuse than to clarify.
Both exhibits bear the same date, the same case number, the same parties, and the same description of the crime charged.
It is true that according to the latter exhibit he established the passage of the sentence. Whether the two exhibits relate to a single infraction or two violations of the same law, we cannot determine but we apprehend that they reflect that the court dealt with but one criminla charge. We are convinced that no sentence was served under the earlier order for the simple reason that none had been imposed and we reject the theory evidently attempted to be developed that even though he was at liberty between 19 November 1956 and 1 June 1959, or 21 October 1959 at which time he says he actually began serving his sentence, he should have some sort of credit for the interim on the sentence eventually imposed.
The petitioner refers us to two cases as support for his position: Batch v. State, Fla.App., 101 So.2d 869, and Helton v. State, Fla., 106 So.2d 79, but he has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. State
...limitation and some were not. See Bateh v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 869; Helton v. State, Fla.1958, 106 So.2d 79; Rodriguez v. State, Fla.1960, 119 So.2d 681; Drayton v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 250; Helton v. Mayo, 1943, 153 Fla. 616, 15 So.2d The facts in the instant case show......
-
Cunningham v. State, 76-2136
...one day less than six months. Aaron v. State, 284 So.2d 673 (Fla.1973); Barr v. State, 334 So.2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).3 Rodriguez v. State, 119 So.2d 681 (Fla.1960); State v. Bateh, 110 So.2d 7 (Fla.1959); and Helton v. State, 106 So.2d 79 (Fla.1958). Also see State v. Stallworth, 251 So.......
-
Simmons v. Wainwright, 71-1452 Summary Calendar.
...the Florida Statutes, F.S.A. See Bateh v. State, 101 So.2d 869 (Fla.App.1958); Helton v. State, 106 So.2d 79 (Fla. 1958); Rodriguez v. State, 119 So.2d 681 (Fla.1960); Drayton v. State, 177 So.2d 250 (Fla.App.1965); Helton v. Mayo, 153 Fla. 616, 15 So.2d 416 As to all other grounds set fort......
-
Smith v. State, P--378
...State, 101 So.2d 869 (Fla.App.1st, 1958), cert. discharged 110 So.2d 1st, 1958), cert. discharged 110 So.2d 7 (Fla.1959); Rodriguez v. State, 119 So.2d 681 (Fla.1960); Drayton v. State, 177 So.2d 250 (Fla.App.3rd, For the reasons stated herein, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed. CARR......