Opinion
No. 6473.
April 1, 1932. Rehearing Denied April 23, 1932.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida; Halsted L. Ritter, Judge.
Petition by J.W. Buchanan for a writ of habeas corpus against J.S. Blitch, as Superintendent of the State Prison of the State of Florida. From an order denying the petition, the petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Emett C. Choate, of Miami, Fla., C.L. Waller and Claude Pepper, both of Tallahassee, Fla., and W.J. Sears, Jr., of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., of Florida, and H.E. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Florida, for appellee.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for the writ of habeas corpus. It is here upon a certificate of the District Judge that in his opinion probable cause was shown for its allowance. 28 USCA § 466.
Appellant was convicted in a state court of murder in the first degree and sentenced to capital punishment by electrocution. The state statute provides for the execution of such a sentence by the superintendent of the state prison, in the presence of the sheriff of the county wherein the conviction was had who is made ex officio deputy executioner of the sentence. Compiled General Laws of Florida, §§ 8429, 8430. The contention on behalf of appellant is that these provisions of law are violative of both the State Constitution and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the superintendent of the state prison is not a public officer. The Supreme Court of Florida, in considering a similar application of appellant, has rejected this contention in so far as the State Constitution is concerned. Blitch v. Buchanan, 100 Fla. 1202, 131 So. 151. Accepting, as of course we do, that court's interpretation of the State Constitution, there is no possible ground for holding that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been violated. Rogers v. Peck, 199 U.S. 425, 26 S. Ct. 87, 50 L. Ed. 256.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.