Williams v. Mayo
Decision Date | 19 January 1937 |
Citation | 172 So. 86,126 Fla. 871 |
Parties | WILLIAMS et al. v. MAYO. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original habeas corpus proceeding by Joe Williams and another against the Honorable Nathan Mayo, as Custodian of State Prison wherein petitioners filed a motion to quash respondent's return.
Motion denied, and petitioners remanded to respondent's custody.
COUNSEL Martin & Martin, of Plant City, for petitioners.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioners were convicted of armed robbery in the criminal court of record of Palm Beach county in February, 1935, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life.
The information upon which the verdict and judgment of conviction were based charged that the defendants, petitioners here did, on January 7, 1935, 'unlawfully and feloniously while armed with a dangerous weapon, to-wit, a pistol, a better description of which is to the County Solicitor unknown, did then and there an assault make in and upon one R. R. Montgomery, and him, the said R. R. Montgomery, did then and there put in bodily fear and danger of his life, and did then and there from the person, and custody of the said R. R. Montgomery and against the will of the said R. R. Montgomery, unlawfully and feloniously steal, take and carry away Two Thousand Dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, of the value of Two Thousand Dollars, good and lawful money of the United States of America, of the property, goods and chattels of the said R. R. Montgomery, with intent then and there, if resisted in the perpetration of their unlawful act, to kill and murder the said R. R. Montgomery, contrary to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.'
The statute, section 7157, C.G.L.Supp. (section 5055, Rev.Gen.St.1920, chapter 13792, § 1, Acts 1929), begins with the words: 'Whoever assaults another and feloniously robs, steals and takes from his person or custody, money or other property which may be the subject of larceny,' etc. In this habeas corpus proceeding the contention is that the information failed to charge any offence against the laws of this state because the word 'rob,' which appears in the statute, was entirely omitted therefrom, whereas it should have been included in the information just before the word 'steal,' and that for this reason, on this collateral attack by habeas corpus, the judgment of conviction should be held void and the petitioners discharged from the custody of the respondent, the custodian of the state penitentiary.
This contention, though ably and earnestly argued, is in our opinion untenable. In spite of this departure from the usual and generally approved custom in drawing informations of using substantially the language of the statute prohibiting the crime or prescribing the punishment, which is permitted by section 8368 C.G.L., nevertheless the information as drawn charges every element of the crime of armed robbery contained in said section 7157, C.G.L.Supp., and every element of common-law robbery as well. Said section 8368, C.G.L., provides that every indictment shall be held good which charges the crime 'substantially in the language of the statute prohibiting the crime or prescribing the punishment, if any such there be, or if at common law, so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may be easily understood by the jury.' And even on motion to quash or in arrest of judgment section 8369 provides that no indictment shall be quashed on account of defect in form, or for misjoinder of offenses, or for any cause whatever, unless the indictment is 'so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.'
In Stephens v. State, 92 Fla. 43, 109 So. 303, this court said that the gist of the offense of armed robbery is 'the felonious taking by the accused, who at the time was armed with a dangerous weapon, of money or other property from the person of another, by violence of putting in fear.' And the common-law definition of robbery is 'the felonious taking of money or goods of value from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by violence, or putting him in fear.' It is quite generally held by the courts, in construing statutes on the subject, that it will not be presumed, in the absence of language to the contrary, that the Legislature intended to change the nature of the crime as understood at common law. 23 R.C.L. 1139.
It is also contended that the information, at most, merely charges larceny, and then rebuts the charge by charging the violent taking by persons armed, resulting in charging no crime whatever. But this, too, is an utterly untenable contention. The statute, by using the words 'steals and takes,' recognizes that larceny is one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foster v. State
...of value from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by violence, or putting him in fear." Williams v. Mayo, 126 Fla. 871, 172 So. 86, 87 (1937); 2 Burdick at Sec. 591.12 In 1977 the Florida Legislature (Ch. 77-342, Sec. 4, Laws of Florida) eliminated a "taking" (manuc......
-
Royal v. State, s. 82-1050
...of value from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by violence, or putting him in fear." Williams v. Mayo, 126 Fla. 871, 172 So. 86, 87 (1937). In construing the robbery statute, it will not be presumed, in the absence of language to the contrary, that the legislatur......
-
Smelley v. State, BH-376
...person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by violence, or putting him in fear." 490 So.2d at 46. See: Williams v. Mayo, 126 Fla. 871, 172 So. 86 (1937); Montsdoca v. State, 84 Fla. 82, 93 So. 157 (1922). In Montsdoca the court had stated it is the threat or force used to acco......
-
State v. Hanna
...523 P.2d 1140 (1974). Other jurisdictions have held that 'armed robbery' is robbing with a dangerous weapon. See, Williams v. Mayo, 126 Fla. 871, 172 So. 86 (1937) and Carter v. State, 27 Wis.2d 451, 134 N.W.2d 444 (1965). Also, robbery by striking or by beating, or by other violence of the......
-
Claims of right in theft and robbery prosecutions.
...(1973). (19) FLA. STAT. [sections]812.13(1) (1974). (20) Royal v. State, 490 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla. 1986). (21) Williams v. Mayo, 172 So. 86, 87 (Fla. (22) Bell, 394 So. 2d at 979. (23) Id. at 979-80. (24) The court's reluctance to infer a legislative intent to change the common law definition......