State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Chapman
| Decision Date | 27 July 1936 |
| Citation | 169 So. 658,125 Fla. 235 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. HAMILTON v. CHAPMAN, Superintendent of State Prison Farm. |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 22, 1936.
Proceeding by the State of Florida, on the relation of James Hamilton for writ of habeas corpus against L. F. Chapman, as Superintendent of the State Prison Farm of Florida, at Raiford.
Petitioner remanded to judge of the Circuit Court, with directions.
On Petition for Rehearing.
COUNSEL G. C. Durrance, of Okeechobee, for relator.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner James Hamilton, was informed against in the circuit court of Collier county and charged with being guilty of armed robbery and as accessory before the fact contrary to section 5055, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 7157, Compiled General Laws, of 1927. He was arraigned and entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to twenty years ast hard labor in the State Penitentiary.
He procured a writ of habeas corpus from this court on a petition which alleges that he was born on July 7, 1920, and was consequently only 15 years of age at the time he was sentenced April 8, 1936, that he is now only 16 years of age, and that he entered the plea of guilty without having the benefit of counsel or being permitted to confer with his father or mother prior to arraignment.
It is contended here that petitioner is a delinquent child under section 2321, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 3684, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and that being under the age of 18 he could not under the controlling statute, section 6318, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 8644, Compiled General Laws of 1927, be sentenced to serve at hard labor in the State Penitentiary. He relies on the following decisions of this court to support his contention: State ex rel. Stiegel v. Chapman, 119 Fla. 347, 161 So. 424; Ex Parte Kitts, 109 Fla. 202, 147 So. 573; Powell v. Stone (Fla.) 169 So. 411, filed July 10, 1936.
Section 6318, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 8644, Compiled General Laws of 1927, was originally section 1 of chapter 5388, Acts 1905, and among other things provides for the manner and causes of committment of minors to the State Industrial School for Boys at Marianna. It applies to all minors under 18 years of age who have been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison, not for life, and authorizes the judge to sentence them to the Florida Industrial School for Boys or to such other punishment provided by law for the same offense in the discretion of the court.
Section 6318, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 8644, Comp.Gen.Laws 1927, has no application to delinquent children as defined by section 2321, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 3684, Compiled General Laws of 1927. They are committed under section 2334, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 3705, Compiled General Laws of 1927, unless accused and found guilty of rape, murder, manslaughter, robbery, arson, burglary, or the attempt to commit any of these crimes. Section 2336, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 3706, Compiled General Laws of 1927. These exceptions have been recognized and approved by this court. State ex rel. Interlandi v. Petteway, 114 Fla. 850, 155 So. 319.
Section 3684, Compiled General Laws of 1927, defining delinquent children includes 'any child less than seventeen years of age, who violates any law of the State, or any city or town ordinance,' but the punishment as provided for such children in section 3705, Compiled General Laws of 1927, only reaches those less than 16 years of age. The statutes defining and punishing delinquent children would, therefore, apply to all minors amenable to and punishable by section 8644, Compiled General Laws of 1927 except those over 16 and under 18 years of age, but the latter statute with reference to the commission of minors to Industrial School for Boys, being first in time, was repealed by the statute with reference to delinquent children except as to minors between 16 and 18 years of age.
Petitioner was sentenced on the eighth day of March, 1936, and attained his sixteenth birthday July 7, following. Having been charged with armed robbery he was within the exceptions noted in section 3706, Compiled General Laws of 1927 to section 3684, Compiled General Laws of 1927. Having been excluded by the latter statute from the provisions of the statute defining and punishing delinquent children, he automatically falls within the terms of section 8644, Compiled General Laws of 1927, under which he should have been committed and it was within the discretion of the judge to commit him to the State Penitentiary or to the Industrial School for Boys at Marianna.
But the petition shows that the notice required by section 6028, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 8322, Compiled General Laws of 1927, was not given to the parents of the petitioner before he was arraigned and sentenced. We have held that failure to give such notice was reversible error. Whitten v. State, 82 Fla. 181, 89 So. 421; Pitts v. State, 88 Fla. 438, 102 So. 554.
If the petitioner was unmarried and only 15 years of age at the time of his arraignment and sentence, the failure to give the required notice to the father and mother vitiated the trial. The petitioner is, therefore, remanded to the judge of the circuit court, with directions that if the petitioner was unmarried and only 15 years of age at the time of the trial his parents be notified of his trial as contemplated by section 8322, Compiled General Laws of 1927 and that he again be permitted to plead to the information and trial proceed accordingly.
Petitioner remanded, with directions.
On Petition for Rehearing.
In the original opinion filed herein July 27, 1936, the petitioner was remanded to the circuit court because it was represented by the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clay v. State
... ... Atty. Gen., for defendant in error ... OPINION ... CHAPMAN, ... The ... plaintiffs in error, Willie B. Clay, Nathaniel Walker and ... Edward ... under the provisions of Sections 3705, 3706 and 3707, C.G.L ... See State ex rel. Hamilton v. Chapman, 125 Fla. 235, ... 169 So. 658. We have examined each of the provisions of ... ...
-
Hamilton v. State
... ... indictment. A former conviction was set aside, for reasons ... not pertinent here. See State ex rel. Hamilton v ... Chapman, 125 Fla. 235, 169 So. 658 ... The ... information upon which the conviction is predicated is as ... follows ... ...
-
Williams v. State, 73--634
...84 So.2d 581, 582. None of the cases cited by the appellant for a contrary holding support his contention. In State ex rel. Hamilton v. Chapman, 125 Fla. 235, 169 So. 658, 660 and DiMarco v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 127 So.2d 674, the parents' notice was received at a time so close to that of the......
-
Thompson v. Cochran
...that is required by the statute contemplates an opportunity for the minor to see and confer with his parents. State ex rel. Hamilton v. Chapman, 125 Fla. 235, 169 So. 658. Certainly the legislative intent would be defeated by holding that where the parent and child are hundreds of miles apa......