From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Mayo

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B
Feb 17, 1948
33 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1948)

Opinion

February 17, 1948

A case of original jurisdiction — habeas corpus.

Arthur Eugene Williams, in proper person.

J. Tom Watson, Attorney General, and Ernest W. Welch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.


This cause is before us on writ of habeas corpus and return thereto.

The record shows that the same factual conditions exist in this case as existed in the case of Scott v. Mayo, 159 Fla. 816, 32 So.2d 821.

Therefore, on authority of the opinion and judgment in that case we do not discharge the petitioner but, under the provisions of Sec. 924.34, Fla. Statutes 1941 (same F.S.A.) remand him to the custody of respondent with directions that petitioner be presented to the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County, Florida, for judgment and sentence as is provided in Sec. 775.09, supra, which said offense is included within the offense charged in the information under which petitioner was convicted.

Remanded with directions.

So ordered.

THOMAS, C. J., ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. Mayo

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B
Feb 17, 1948
33 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1948)
Case details for

Williams v. Mayo

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR EUGENE WILLIAMS alias EUGENE WILLIAMS v. NATHAN MAYO, Florida State…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, Division B

Date published: Feb 17, 1948

Citations

33 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1948)
160 Fla. 169

Citing Cases

Sellers v. Mayo

Such offense is included within the offense charged in the information under which petitioner was convicted…