R. C. MAUDLIN, ALIAS LEROY HOWARD,
v.
STATE; AND FREIDA VALLEY V. STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed judgments against accessories before the fact because they were entered before a judgment was pronounced against the principal offender. The court remanded the cases for proper judgment entry after the principal's judgment.
No, a judgment against accessories before the fact cannot be validly entered before a judgment is pronounced against the principal offender. The judgments entered in these cases were therefore erroneous.
“we find reflected therein no reversible error except that judgment appears by that other record lodged in this Court to have been entered against these convicted accessories after the principal in the substantive offense had pleaded guilty as principal, but before judgment had been pronounced against her.”
This quote explains the specific error found by the court regarding the timing of the judgment against the accessories.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants were convicted as accessories before the fact. However, the judgment against them was entered before a judgment was pronounced against …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Accessory Before The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
— The writs of error in these cases bring for review the same judgment which was attacked in the habeas corpus proceedings in the case of State, ex rel. Maudlin, et al., v. Dan Hardie, Sheriff, in which opinion was filed at this term of the Court, 114 Fla. 374, 154 So. 183.
The record has been. examined and considered with the result that we find reflected therein no reversible error except that judgment appears by that other record lodged in this Court to have been entered against these convicted accessories after the principal in the substantive offense had pleaded guilty as principal, but before judgment had been pronounced against her. See State, ex rel. Maudlin, et al., v. Hardie, supra, and authority there cited.
For the reasons stated in State, ex rel. Maudlin v. Hardie, supra, the judgments entered in these cases are reversed *377and the causes ate remanded for the entry of proper judgments after the entry of judgment against the principal in the commission of the offense of which these defendants were charged and convicted of being accessories before the fact.
It is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.