State v. Davidson
| Citation | 103 Fla. 954,139 So. 177 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. CHERRY v. DAVIDSON, Sheriff. |
| Decision Date | 22 December 1931 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
En Banc.
Original habeas corpus proceeding by the State of Florida on the relation of Willie Cherry against J. P. Davidson, as Sheriff of Manatee County.
Petitioner discharged from custody.
COUNSEL J. O. Brown, Jr., of Palmetto, for petitioner.
Dewey A. Dye, State Atty., of Bradenton, for respondent.
By writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner, Willie Cherry, seeks release from custody under an indictment found by the grand jury of Manatee county, Fla., charging him with being a common and notorious thief under section 7233, Comp. Gen Laws, section 5132, Rev. Gen. St. His contention is that a person who has been twice convicted of petit larceny in a county court, and who has completed service of the term imposed upon him as the result of such convictions, may not under section 7233, Comp. Gen. Laws, supra, be proceeded against by indictment as a common and notorious thief in the circuit court of the county wherein both convictions were had, where the sole basis of the indictment is the two previous convictions of petit larceny, unrelated to the commission of another larceny upon which no previous conviction has been had.
Section 7233, Comp. Gen. Laws, supra, upon which the indictment in this case was based, reads as follows:
Second Conviction of Larceny.--Whoever having been convicted either of the crime of larceny or of being accessory to the crime of larceny, afterwards commits the crime of larceny, or is accessory thereto before the fact, and is convicted thereof and whoever is convicted at the same term of the court either as a principal or accessory before the fact, of two distinct larcenies, shall be deemed a common and notorious thief, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison not exceeding twenty years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year.'
Our research into the history of the statute shows that it was originally enacted as section 22 of subschapter 4, chapter 1637, Acts of 1868, which was an act to provide for the punishment of crime, and proceedings in criminal cases. As originally enacted, the statute read as follows:
'Whoever, having been convicted upon indictment, either of (the) crime of larceny or of being accessory to the crime of larceny, afterwards commits the crime of larceny, or is accessory thereto before the fact, (and is convicted thereof upon indictment, and whoever is convicted at the same term of the court, either as principal or accessory before the fact,) of two distinct larcenies, shall be deemed a common and notorious thief, and be punished by imprisonment in the State penitentiary not exceeding twenty years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year.'
There was contained in the same act section 18, which defined the crime of larceny and prescribed its punishment. Section 18, just referred to, reads as follows:
'Whoever commits larceny, by stealing of the property of another, any money, goods, or chattels, of any bank note, bond, promissory note, bill of exchange, or other bill, order or certificate, or any book of accounts for or concerning money or goods due, or to become due, or to be delivered, or any deed or writing containing a conveyance of land, or any other valuable contract in force, or any writ, process, or public record, if the property stolen exceeds the value of one hundred dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in the State penitentiary not exceeding five years, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars and imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year; or if the property stolen does not exceed the value of one hundred dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in the State penitentiary or county jail not exceeding one year; or by fine not exceeding three hundred dollars.'
Said section 18 has been brought forward into the Compiled General Laws of 1927 as section 7223, 7224, Comp. Gen. Laws, sections 5122, 5123, Rev. Gen. St., which sections define and provide for the punishment of grand and petit larceny. The history of these two sections shows that they have both been materially amended since their original enactment as section 18 of the Act of 1868, above referred to.
By a reference to the foregoing quoted provisions of section 18, as it originally read when it first became a law, it will be observed that both grand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamont v. State
...statutes must be strictly construed according to their letter. E.g., State v. Jackson, 526 So.2d 58 (Fla.1988); State ex rel. Cherry v. Davidson, 103 Fla. 954, 139 So. 177 (1931); Ex parte Bailey, 39 Fla. 734, 23 So. 552 (1897). This principle ultimately rests on the due process requirement......
-
Watson v. Stone
...... defectively or inartificially. It is settled that a person. held in confinement under a state of facts which constitutes. no offense under the law is held unlawfully and may be. discharged from such confinement on writ of habeas corpus. See ... its meaning, the Court should resolve the doubt in favor of. the citizen. See State ex rel. Cherry v. Davidson,. 103 Fla. 954, 139 So. 177. Any doubt or ambiguity in the. provisions of criminal statutes are. [4 So.2d 701] . to be construed in favor of the ......
- State Ex Rel. Bd. of Com'rs of Indian River Mosquito Control Dist. v. Board of Com'rs of Indian River County
-
State Ex Rel. Williams v. Coleman
...... citizen. See Ex parte Amos, 93 Fla. 5, 112 So. 289;. Whitehurst v. State, 105 Fla. 574, 141 So. 878;. Texas Co. v. Amos, 77 Fla. 327, 81 So. 471; Ex parte. Kilgore, 106 Fla. 723, 143 So. 610; Maxcy, Inc. v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552, 139 So. 121. See, also, State ex. rel. Cherry v. Davidson, 103 Fla. 954, 139 So. 177. . . It is. essential that the indictment here should charge a crime. against the laws of Florida. It is true that a conspiracy to. commit a crime is prohibited by the laws of Florida. If the. above indictment fails to state a crime per se, then the. ......