State v. Bell
| Decision Date | 21 July 1932 |
| Citation | 143 So. 151,106 Fla. 250 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. POSTON v. BELL, Sheriff, et al.[*] |
Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of Herman Poston for a writ of habeas corpus directed to Thad Bell, Sheriff of Walton County, and others.
Relator remanded, with directions fixing future custody.
COUNSEL W. W. Flournoy, of De Funiak Springs, for relator.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Herman Poston was convicted under section 7654, Comp. Gen. Laws section 5496 Rev. Gen. St., of the crime of withholding means of support from his wife and child. The sentence of two years in state prison was affirmed by this court without opinion. See Poston v. State (Fla.) 140 So. 782.
Application was made to the circuit judge to fix bond for the release of the defendant from punishment under the sentence. This procedure is provided for by said section 7654, supra. The provision of the statute relating to such application reads as follows:
'* * * Provided, further, that the said husband or wife, as the case may be, may at any time, either before or after conviction, appear before the court in which charged, and enter into a good and sufficient bond, payable to the Governor of the State of Florida, in a sum to be fixed by the court, not less than one hundred dollars or more than one thousand dollars, conditioned that he, or she, as the case may be, will provide the wife and child, or children, or the wife where there is no child, or the child, or children, as the case may be, with necessary and proper home, food, clothing and care; or will, for such purposes, pay to a trustee, to be appointed by the court, promptly, as the court may be order require, weekly, monthly, or quarterly, such sum as the court may decide to be just and proper; or in the event such child or children be in a home or institution for children that he or she, as the case may be, will pay to the manager or superintendent of such home or institution the reasonable and necessary cost of the care and maintenance of such child or children therein, the amount and time of payments to be fixed by the court, whereupon the party charged shall be released from custody or further punishment under such charge.'
The contention here on habeas corpus is that the circuit judge exceeded his authority under the statute in undertaking to require defendant to give a bond different in terms and character from that the statute provides for, and that therefore an order of the circuit judge committing petitioner to state prison under the original conviction and sentence under which he is shown to be held in custody, is illegal.
The statute, not the court, fixes the terms and conditions of the bond. The only exception is that the trial judge is permitted to fix the amount of the bond to be given, within the statutory limitations, and also the amount of money which shall be paid by the convicted defendant to the trustee appointed by the court to act when certain stated contingencies occur.
The statute contemplates that the convicted defendant may enter into a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, not less than $100 and not more than $1,000, conditioned that he will provide the wife or child, or both, as the case may be, with necessary and proper home, food, clothing, and care. This is the primary obligation to be enforced, and the only obligation which can be exacted of the defendant in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial