Whitney v. Cochran, 31516
| Decision Date | 19 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 31516,31516 |
| Parties | Dennis Manaford WHITNEY, Petitioner, v. H. G. COCHRAN, Jr., as Director of the Division of Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Charles A. Nugent, Jr., and Miller, Cone, Owen, Wagner & Nugent, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty., Gen., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Roy Lee Jones, Asst. State Atty., for respondent.
By a post conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus Whitney assaults a conviction for first degree murder because of an alleged denial of due process at his trial.
We are called upon to consider the petitioner's claims that his conviction and sentence to death were infected by fatal deprivations of organic rights.
On June 30, 1960, petitioner was adjudged guilty of first degree murder pursuant to a jury verdict without recommendation of mercy. On that date he was sentenced to death. This Court affirmed the judgment on Appeal. Whitney v. State, Fla., 132 So.2d 599. The cited opinion recites the significant facts which were developed at the trial. Dennis Whitney, a seventeen year old youth, murdered one Arthur Keeler while in the act of robbing a filling station. He had previously been convicted of another murder for which he had received a life snetence. To represent him in the instant case the trial judge appointed two well-reputed lawyers who had acquired extensive experience in criminal practice. Both had served as assistant attorneys general. One had served as a municipal judge of the City of Miami. The other had served as assistant state attorney of Dade County and had prosecuted several hundred homicide cases. It is obvious that the trial judge carefully selected the defense lawyers. The assignment was far from perfunctory. These lawyers were obviously no mere dilettantes in the handling of criminal cases. It became clear from their investigations that Whitney was guilty of the crime. His only hope, in their view, and apparently his, was to plan the trial tactics in a fashion that would most likely lead to a recommendation of mercy. The foreboding death sentence would be avoided thereby. Admittedly, there was little hope for an acquittal.
After extensive negotiations with the state attorney and after numerous conferences with Whitney and his two sisters who had come to his assistance, the attorneys prepared a stipulation setting forth the essential but unembellished facts of the homicide. After being fully informed of the possibilities, the accused signed the stipulation. His sisters also signed it to indicate their approval. As we have stated, the hoped-for mercy recommendation did not result. On April 18, 1962, Whitney filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims a deprivation of due process with a contention that he was induced to sign the stipulation on the assurance of his attorney that in so doing he would escape the electric chair; he asserts that he was not consulted during the appeal of his conviction to this Court; relying upon the constitutional guarantee of a right to confront the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them, he asserts that the stipulation denied him the benefit of this constitutional privilege; he now contends that under the circumstances alleged, the stipulation was, in effect, a compulsion to testify against himself. As he did on his appeal, the petitioner again claims that Section 782.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is unconstitutional because it does not limit the class or age group of persons subject to the penalty for violation of its provisions.
Because of the seriousness of the charges and the severity of the impending punishment, the respondent recommended that the writ be issued and a return required. This we did. Honorable Lamar Warren, one of the judges of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit was appointed a commissioner of this Court to receive the evidence and to submit his findings and recommendations to us. This is our established practice in post conviction proceedings when there are factual issues requiring evidentiary support. Cf. Cash v. Culver, Fla., 120 So.2d 590. Judge Warren has faithfully followed the instructions contained in the order of his appointment. He patiently, and with abounding fairness, heard all of the testimony offered in this proceeding. He meticulously extended to the petitioner broad latitude in the submission of testimony and the cross examination of opposing witnesses. The Court's commissioner has submitted a comprehensive review of the evidence. He has found against the petitioner on all of the claims asserted by him in his petition. He recommends that the petitioner be remanded to custody.
We have examined in detail the transcript of testimony offered before the commissioner. We are impelled to the conclusion that his findings are well grounded in the record and that his ultimate recommendation is fully justified.
It is perfectly clear from the evidence offered in this proceeding, as well as from the record of the original trial, that the critical stipulation was executed only after a thorough and conscientious consideration of what appeared to be the best interests of the petitioner. It obviously...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford v. Strickland
...of leniency was held within the exclusive province of the jury to be determined on the facts of the particular case, Whitney v. Cochran, 152 So.2d 727 (Fla.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 888, 84 S.Ct. 166, 11 L.Ed.2d 118 (1963), and the jury decision, whether it recommended mercy or not, was bin......
-
Whitney v. State, 65-401
...conviction has been before the courts of this State on several occasions (see: Whitney v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 599; Whitney v. Cochran, Fla.1963, 152 So.2d 727), and was before the Federal court (see: Whitney v. Wainwright, 5th Cir.1964, 339 F.2d Subsequent to the last proceeding in t......
-
Craig v. State, 34101
...citing F.S. § 921.13, F.S.A.; Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654, 661 (Fla.1959); Davis v. State, 123 So.2d 703 (Fla.1960); Whitney v. Cochran, 152 So.2d 727 (Fla.1963); Nations v. State, 145 So.2d 259 (DCA2nd 1962). Appellant contends that the possibility that background information may be s......
-
Brooks v. State, G-64
...United States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491, 494 (2d Cir. 1958).13 Arellanes v. United States, 326 F.2d 560, 561 (9 Cir., 1964); Whitney v. Cochran, 152 So.2d 727 (Fla.1963).14 Wilder v. State, 156 So.2d 395, 397 (Fla.App.1st, 1963).15 Johnson v. United States, supra.16 See Di Bona v. State, 121 S......