STATE, EX REL. PEARL SEAY,
v.
NATHAN MAYO, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND SUPERVISOR OF STATE PRISON
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.
Pearl Seay challenges his imprisonment after being convicted of larceny and sentenced to two years hard labor. The Florida Supreme Court holds that his commitment to prison was void because it was issued while his conviction judgment was lawfully superseded by a supersedeas bond, pending appellate review.
The commitment issued by the clerk was void ab initio because it was based on a judgment that had been lawfully superseded. A defendant who complies with the terms of a supersedeas order has a right to have the judgment reviewed on appeal, and detention during this period is unlawful.
“The petitioner had complied in all respects with the terms and conditions of the supersedeas order as entered by the trial court and was discharged from custody while his case on appeal was awaiting disposition by this court.”
Establishes that Seay fully satisfied all conditions of the supersedeas bond and was lawfully released pending appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeay was convicted in Union County Circuit Court of larceny of a hog and sentenced to two years hard labor on December 12, 1938. He obtained a writ of…
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 Supersedeas Bond Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a case of original jurisdiction. The record in this case shows that the petitioner, Pearl Seay, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, on the crime of larceny of a hog, and on the 12th day of December, 1938, was by the trial court sentenced to the State Prison for a period of two years at hard labor. From this sentence of conviction a writ of error was' sued out, order of insolvency entered, and a supersedeas order permitting or allowing petitioner to deposit into the registry *782of the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, the sum of $300.00 in compliance with the conditions of his supersedeas bond, and when so complied with by petitioner, that said bond would have the effect of and act as a supersedeas' in said cause.
The supersedeas bond was filed by the petitioner here and the sum of $300.00 paid into the registry of the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, and the supersedeas bond and the payment of the $300.00 were approved and accepted by the Clerk, supra, under date of December 12, 1938, and a certified copy thereof' as made by the Clerk now appeai-s in the record here. It affirmatively appears that the petitioner had complied in all respects with the terms and conditions' of the supersedeas order as entered by the trial court and was discharged from custody while his case on appeal was awaiting disposition by this court.
On January 16, 1937, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, issued a commitment of the petitioner here to the State Prison based upon the judgment of conviction and sentence to the State Prison for a period of two years for the larceny of a hog and was iss'ued at a time when the said judgment of conviction had been superseded and all the terms and conditions of the supersedeas order had been fully complied with and the judgment had been appealed to this Court and had not been reached or disposed of on its merits by this Court. The petitioner has a right, as a matter of law, to have the judgment of conviction and s'entence entered by the lower court reviewed by this Court.
On petition for a writ of habeas corpus counsel contends that the petitioner «'here is. being unlawfully deprived of his liberty and that the commitment issued by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, based on the judgment lawfully superseded is void ab initio. The return as *783made by the respondent to the writ served upon him has been examined and the same fails to controvert the facts as' above stated, and we hold that the return showing the cause of detention is legally insufficient upon which to deprive the petitioner of his liberty. See Sections 8465, 8466, and 8467, C. G. L.; Davis v. State, 87 Fla. 505, 100 So. 739; State v. Mitchell, 29 Fla. 302, 10 So. 764; Rabon v. State, 7 Fla. 10.
It being made to appear that the petitioner is being unlawfully deprived of his liberty, it is the judgment of this Court that the petitioner, Pearl Seay, be and he is hereby discharged from custody. It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Tampa Elec. Co., 143 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1940)…ent entered in favor of the defendant pursuant to the opinion of the Supreme Court must be and is hereby denied. “It is so Ordered at Tampa, Florida, this 23rd day of November, A. D. 1939.” The opinion of this Court in Tampa Electric Co. v. Jones, 137 Fla. 781, 190 Sou. 26, reflects the established law of this case. In that opinion and judgment we held “The record discloses no actionable negligence on the part of the defendant * * In Webb Furniture Co., Inc., v. Everett, 105 Fla. 292, 141 Sou. 115, we he…
-
Perez v. State, 143 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…ee also Burnett v. State, 144 Fla. 689, 198 So. 500. The right to appeal is granted by Article V of the Constitution of the State, F.S.A. It follows that no state officer or agency may frustrate that right. State ex rel. Seay v. Mayo, 137 Fla. 871, 189 So. 26. We therefore hold that under the facts of this case where, within more than ample time to reach the clerk of the trial court in the normal process of the mail, there is delivered to the designated prison official a properly addressed and stamped en…
-
Ramey v. State, 199 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…o other authority in the adjudicated Florida cases that denies an accused his right of appeal from a judgment of conviction where the judgment is based upon a guilty plea. On the other hand, the Supreme Court in State ex rel. Seay v. Mayo, Fla.1939, 189 So. 26, held plainly that— “A defendant has a right as a matter of law to have judgment of conviction and sentence entered by lower court reviewed by Supreme Court.” It is our considered view that under the law of Florida an accused in a criminal case ha…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mitchell, 29 Fla. 302 (Fla. 1892)
- Rabon v. The State, 7 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1857)
- Davis v. State, 87 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1924)