BERRY F. FINCH, PETITIONER,
v.
NATHAN MAYO, AS CUSTODIAN OF THE FLORIDA STATE PRISON, 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.
Petitioner Berry Finch sought habeas corpus relief from his 10-year consecutive sentence (two 5-year terms) for narcotic violations. The Florida Supreme Court held that because Finch had escaped from prison and lost gain-time credits, his first sentence had not yet expired, making his incarceration lawful regardless of any potential defects in the second sentence.
The writ of habeas corpus should be quashed and petitioner remanded to custody. Because the first 5-year sentence had not yet expired after accounting for the escape period and forfeiture of gain time, any potential defect in the second sentence is immaterial to the validity of his current incarceration.
“He is not entitled to any credit on his said sentences for the period he was at large. Moreover by reason of his escape he forfeited all accrued gain time authorized by section 954.06, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.”
Establishes the consequences of escape and forfeiture of credits that undermine petitioner's habeas corpus claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFinch was sentenced on February 4, 1943, to serve two consecutive 5-year sentences for violations of the Uniform Narcotic Act. He began serving his se…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
This is an original habeas corpus proceeding which is before the Court for final disposition on the petition, the writ of habeas corpus and the respondent’s return thereto.
From these pleadings it appears that the petitioner was sentenced on February 4, 1943, to serve two consecutive 5-year sentences imposed for violations of the Uniform Narcotic Act. He was received at the State Prison to begin serving the term on February 8, 1943. He escaped from the State Prison on June 15,1944, and remained at large until March 18, 1954, at which time he was returned to custody.
He is not entitled to any credit on his said sentences for the period he was at large. Moreover by reason of his escape he forfeited all accrued gain time authorized by section 954.06, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Thus it appears from the record that the first 5-year sentence imposed by the trial court has not yet expired and therefore it becomes immaterial, in this proceeding, that there may be some question as to the validity of the second 5-year sentence, which is to begin to run at the conclusion of the first 5-year sentence that was imposed. Allison v. Baker, 152 Fla. 274, 11 So. 2d 578; Ex parte Puckett, 159 Fla. 468, 31 So. 2d 868; Clemens v. Mayo, 159 Fla. 473, 31 So. 2d 869.
Accordingly, it follows that the writ should .be quashed and that the petitioner should be remanded to custody.
It is so ordered.
•MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tilghman v. Culver, 99 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1957)…in time, since that is within the discretion of prison officials under the circumstances of this case, § 954.06, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; and he properly excluded from petitioner’s credit the time petitioner was an escapee. Finch v. Mayo, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 770. The sentencing method adopted in State v. Nelson, 1948, 160 Fla. 744, 36 So. 2d 427, and generally followed by the trial court in this case, is calculated to inform the prison authorities and the prisoner of his probable release date; and as menti…
-
Byers v. Cochran, 143 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1962)…entence now serving.” Petitioner is not entitled on habeas corpus to question the validity of a consecutive sentence he has not yet begun to serve, since he is already in custody under a sentence which he does not question. Finch v. Mayo, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 770; Gorman v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 127 So. 2d 667. Accordingly, the writ heretofore issued must be quashed and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the respondent, without prejudice to his right to again petition for writ of habeas corpus wherein h…
Authorities Cited
- Stafford Allison v. Baker, 152 Fla. 274 (Fla. 1943)
- Clemens v. Mayo, 159 Fla. 473 (Fla. 1947)
- Ex parte: George F. Puckett, 159 Fla. 468 (Fla. 1947)