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.
The Florida Supreme Court ordered the immediate arrest of Pearl Seay, who had been released on a superseded judgment of conviction. The court found that Seay's supersedeas bond had become inadequate, allowing him to be taken back into custody unless a new, sufficient bond was posted.
Yes, Pearl Seay should be immediately taken into custody and a commitment to the State prison issued on the judgment of conviction, unless he posts a new, adequate supersedeas bond.
“it has been brought to the attention of this Court in the form of a certificate of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, under date of July 10, 1939, that a change in the security of the supersedeas bond had occurred and that the said Pearl Seay is now at large and the supersedeas bond previously given by him is wholly inadequate and fails to meet the requirements of the law;”
This quote establishes the factual basis for the court's decision, highlighting the inadequacy of the supersedeas bond.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePearl Seay was granted liberty from a conviction for larceny via a habeas corpus proceeding because his judgment of conviction was superseded. However…
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 Judgment Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
On the 19th day oí May, 1939, an opinion was adopted by this Court in habeas corpus proceeding which granted Pearl Seay his liberty from a judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, for the crime of larceny, during the period necessary to dispose of the same by this Court on appeal, it having been made to appear that a commitment based on the aforesaid judgment had issued and Pearl Seay had been taken into custody of the law at a time when the said judgment of conviction was fully superseded.
Since the adoption of the aforesaid opinion, it has been brought to the attention of this Court in the form of a certificate of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, under date of July 10, 1939, that a change in the security of the supersedeas bond had occurred and that the said Pearl Seay is now at large and the supersedeas bond previously given by him is wholly inadequate and fails to meet the requirements of the law;
It is therefore ordered by this Court, sua sponte, that the said Pearl Seay be immediately taken into the custody of the law and that a commitment to the State prison be issued on the aforesaid judgment of conviction, provided a supersedeas bond be by him not given and approved by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, conditioned as required by law and with such sureties as meet all lawful requirements.
Terrell, C. J., and Wbitfield, Brown, Buford and Thomas, J. J.. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cash v. State, 73 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1954)…supersedeas bonds under which defendants in criminal proceedings are permitted to go at large after their conviction of crime but before the final disposition of ah appeal taken from a judgment of conviction or sentence. State ex rel. Seay v. Mayo, 139 Fla. 291, 190 So. 598; Webb v. State, Fla., 56 So. 2d 524. In Ex parte Cribbs, 109 Fla. 286, 146 So. 912, the principle is established that where a defendant at large on bail is subsequently surrendered by his surety and recommitted under a capias issued pu…
-
Woody Smith v. State, 142 Fla. 468 (Fla. 1940)…e province of the jury to settle. The jury found against the accused and the trial court declined to set aside the verdict. It is not made to appear that reversible error was committed. See Sanford v. State, 90 Fla. 337, 106 Sou. 406; Seay v. State, 139 Fla. 291, 190 Sou. 702, and Jarvis v. State, 115 Fla. 320 and 329, 156 Sou. 310. The judgment is affirmed. So ordered. Affirmed. Terrell, C. J., Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur. Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment. Justices Brown and Chapman not…