State ex rel. Copeland v. Mayo
| Decision Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida ex rel. Charlie COPELAND, Jr., Petitioner, v. Nathan MAYO, Prison Custodian of the State of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Releford McGriff and Ernest D. Jackson, Sr., Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
July 24, 1953, petitioner was indicted for rape in Duval County. He was tried and convicted September 2o, 1953, without recommendation for mercy and was sentenced to death by electrocution. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida his conviction was affirmed and mandate transmitted to the Circuit Court December 16, 1954, 76 So.2d 137. Petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied by the Supreme Court of Florida March 1, 1955, 78 So.2d 399. Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied October 10, 1955, 350 U.S. 851, 76 S.Ct. 92. Petitioner alleges that petition for habeas corpus was denied by United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, April 21, 1956, on the ground that the question, being the same as that raised here, had not ben presented to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Petitioner now seeks relief in this court by writ of habeas corpus on the grounds (1) that the death sentence imposed on him is excessive and discriminatory and deprives him of the equal protection of the law in that it is violative or Section 1, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in that the death penalty for the crime of rape is meted out almost exclusively to defendants of petitioner's racial identity; (2) petitioner further alleges that for a period of more than 20 years only one white defendant has been executed for rape in Florida while over twenty-three colored defendants have been executed for rape; that at least two white defendants have in recent years been convicted of rape and both received recommendations to mercy, avoiding the death penalty; (3) petitioner further alleges that the jury has for more than 20 years consistently returned verdicts without recommendation to mercy in cases where defendants were colored citizens and the victims were white females, 'but that during the same period has almost never rbought back a verdict of guilty without a recommendation of mercy where the defendants are members of either the colored or white race'; the jury returning the verdict in this case without recommendation to mercy, subjecting defendant to the death penalty, is a denial of defendant's rights to equal protection of the laws as prescribed in Section 1, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution in that the death penalty is meted out only to members of defendant's racial identity when the victim is of different racial identity than the accused; (4) petitioner further alleges that his rights as set forth herein have not ben previously adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Florida or the Supreme Court of the United States; however, the case of State v. Jimmie Lee Thomas is now pending before the Supreme Court of Florida where the precise issue set out herein was timely raised and that to execute petitioner prior to the disposition of the Jimmie Lee Thomas case would subject him to death penalty 'which may be unconstitutional'; (5) the petitioner further alleges and shows that he is without funds to pay the costs of this proceeding and cannot raise any money to pay same, and unless the costs thereof are taxed against the State of Florida, your petitioner will be unlawfully deprived of the writ of habeas corpus. The petition contains the appropriate prayer for relief and that upon final hearing petitioner's sentence be declared null and void and that he be returned to the proper court to be sentenced according to law.
The point for determination is whether or not on the showing made by the petition as detailed in the previous paragraph the writ of habeas corpus should be granted.
Summarized, the sole ground relied on for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus is embraced in the allegation, 'history shows that the jury has, over a long and extended period of years, to wit, over 20 years, consistently returned verdicts without recommending mercy in cases where the defendants were colored citizens and the victims were white female citizens, but during the same period of time has almost never brought back a verdict of guilty without recommendation of mercy where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Florida State Dept. of Public Welfare
...Johnson v. Lindsey, 1925, 89 Fla. 143, 103 So. 419; Coleman v. State ex rel. Race, 1935, 118 Fla. 201, 159 So. 504.15 State ex rel. Copeland v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 501. ...
-
Newman v. State
...his race, violative of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Thomas v. State (Fla.), 92 So.2d 621; State ex rel. Copeland v. Mayo (Fla.), 87 So.2d 501, and Williams v. State, (Fla.), 110 So.2d 654, cert. denied 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d Affirmed. THOMAS, ROBE......
-
Williams v. State
...the law. We can add nothing to that which we have previously stated in Thomas v. State, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 621, and State ex rel. Copeland v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 501. The contention as to the alleged unconstitutionality of the cited statutes is once again found to be without We are fin......
-
McCrae v. Wainwright, 63796
...issues which should have been raised at trial and on appeal. Hargrave v. Wainwright, 388 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1980); State ex rel. Copeland v. Mayo, 87 So.2d 501 (Fla.1956). Allegations of ineffective appellate counsel therefore should not be allowed to serve as a means of circumventing the rule......