Washington v. Mayo
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | SEBRING; MATHEWS |
| Citation | 77 So.2d 620 |
| Parties | Ishmael WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. Nathan MAYO, as Custodian of the Florida State Prison, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1955 |
Page 620
v.
Nathan MAYO, as Custodian of the Florida State Prison, Respondent.
Ishmael Washington, in pro. per.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
SEBRING, Justice.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding wherein the petitioner questions the validity
Page 621
of a judgment and sentence imposed upon him as a fourth offender under section 775.10, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A.The information upon which the conviction was based charged, in effect, that the petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court for Jackson County, Florida, on January 11, 1926, of a felony, to-wit, the larceny of a motor vehicle, and sentenced to serve a term of 5 years in the State Prison; and was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County, Florida, on September 4, 1934, of a felony, to-wit, attempting to break and enter a building with intent to commit a felony, and sentenced to serve a term of 18 months in the Duval County jail; and was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County, Florida, on October 31, 1936, of a felony, to-wit, receiving stolen property, and sentenced to serve a term of 2 years in the State Prison; and was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County, Florida, on August 27, 1940, of a felony, to-wit, entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony, and sentenced to serve a term of 6 years in the State Prison.
The petitioner seeks first to attack the sufficiency of the information by which he was charged as an habitual criminal on the ground that it fails to state the date upon which the various offenses were committed and consequently does not constitute a lawful predicate for his conviction as a fourth offender.
The rule is clear that a convicted prisoner should not be heard to raise in a subsequent proceeding, whatever its nature, issues that were previously raised and determined, or that the prisoner had a fair and adequate opportunity to raise and have determined in earlier proceedings. State ex rel. Johnson v. Mayo, Fla., 69 So.2d 307, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 992, 74 S.Ct. 855, 98 L.Ed. 1125; Irvin v. State, Fla., 66 So.2d 288, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 927, 74 S.Ct. 316, 98 L.Ed. 419.
It appears from the allegations of the petition and the record in the cause that, in respect to petitioner's first contention, this is precisely what he seeks to do. For in the case of Washington v. Mayo, 159 Fla. 477, 31 So.2d 870,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durley v. Mayo, No. 489
...* * *.' Page 281 Florida's other state ground is based upon its Supreme Court decisions, and particularly upon Washington v. Mayo, 77 So.2d 620, 621. It is there stated that 'The rule is clear that a convicted prisoner should not be heard to raise in a subsequent proceeding, whatever its na......
-
Whitney v. State, No. 65-401
...proceedings, and not to new grounds. In this connection, see: Johnson v. Lindsey, 89 Fla. 143, 103 So. 419; Washington v. Mayo, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 620; Piehl v. State, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 723; Weeks v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 746 (opinion filed January 18, 1966); Sanders v. Unite......
-
Barber v. Gladden
...failure to do so, he is precluded from raising issues which he could have raised in any such prior proceedings. Washington v. Mayo, Fla., 77 So.2d 620; Irvin v. Chapman, Fla., 75 So.2d 591; State ex rel. Johnson v. Mayo, Fla., 69 So.2d 307. * * We interpret our own statute, ORS 34.710, to m......
-
Cabrera v. State, No. 5D03-2367.
...which means "a determination of guilt resulting from plea or trial...." Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.704(d)(6); see also Washington v. Mayo, 77 So.2d 620 (Fla.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 851, 76 S.Ct. 91, 100 L.Ed. 757 (1955). Generally, it is the state's responsibility to bring to the trial court's att......
-
Durley v. Mayo, No. 489
...* * *.' Page 281 Florida's other state ground is based upon its Supreme Court decisions, and particularly upon Washington v. Mayo, 77 So.2d 620, 621. It is there stated that 'The rule is clear that a convicted prisoner should not be heard to raise in a subsequent proceeding, whatever its na......
-
Whitney v. State, No. 65-401
...proceedings, and not to new grounds. In this connection, see: Johnson v. Lindsey, 89 Fla. 143, 103 So. 419; Washington v. Mayo, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 620; Piehl v. State, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 723; Weeks v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 746 (opinion filed January 18, 1966); Sanders v. Unite......
-
Barber v. Gladden
...failure to do so, he is precluded from raising issues which he could have raised in any such prior proceedings. Washington v. Mayo, Fla., 77 So.2d 620; Irvin v. Chapman, Fla., 75 So.2d 591; State ex rel. Johnson v. Mayo, Fla., 69 So.2d 307. * * We interpret our own statute, ORS 34.710, to m......
-
Cabrera v. State, No. 5D03-2367.
...which means "a determination of guilt resulting from plea or trial...." Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.704(d)(6); see also Washington v. Mayo, 77 So.2d 620 (Fla.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 851, 76 S.Ct. 91, 100 L.Ed. 757 (1955). Generally, it is the state's responsibility to bring to the trial court's att......