RAPHAEL E. CENTANNI, PETITIONER,
v.
H. G. COCHRAN, JR., DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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 denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner was not entitled to release from custody. The court held that even if the notice requirements for minors were not met, the petitioner's mother had actual notice, and he was also serving other valid, unattacked sentences.
No, the petitioner is not entitled to release. The court found that his mother had actual notice of the proceedings, and he was also serving other valid sentences that he did not challenge.
“It appears from the return that petitioner is not entitled to the relief which he seeks for the reason that actual notice of the charges against him was received by petitioner's mother prior to his trial.”
Establishes the court's finding of actual notice to the petitioner's mother.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing his detention was illegal because he was an unmarried minor when sentenced, and his parents wer…
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 Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court charging that his detention by the respondent was illegal for the reason that the sentences which he is serving were imposed while he was an unmarried minor, and his parents were not given notification of the proceedings against him as required by Section 932.38 F.S.A. On the basis of petitioner’s allegations the writ was issued and a return has since been filed. It appears from the return that petitioner is not entitled to the relief which he seeks for the reason that actual notice of the charges against him was received by petitioner’s mother prior to his trial. Moreover, it appears that petitioner’s mother, who is his only surviving parent, visited him in jail prior to the date of his conviction and sentencing. Thus, under the rule applied in Bowen v. Cochran, Fla., 121 So.2d 154, and cases cited therein, petitioner is not entitled to relief.
In addition to the aforementioned bar to relief, it also appears that petitioner is now serving concurrently other sentences, the validity of which he does not attack. This fact in itself would be sufficient to remand petitioner to custody. Hollingshead v. Mayo, Fla., 79 So.2d 774, and cases cited therein.
For the reasons above stated, we conclude that the writ heretofore issued should be *147and hereby is discharged and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the respondent.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Court Comm. to Study & Report on Question of Methods of Determining Those Who Should Be Admitted to Practice in Fla., 121 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1960)
- Stover v. Stubbs, 79 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1955)
- Cleveland Hollingshead v. Mayo, 79 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1955)