Dowling v. Lee

Citations

• 68 Fla. 23
• 66 So. 142

Syllabus

<p>1. Habeas Corpus cannot be used to take the place, or to serve the purpose, of a writ of error to determine whether a judgment is erroneous, when the court has jurisdiction of the person and the conviction is of an offense under the law and within the jurisdiction of the court to try.</p> <p>2. Where a court martial has jurisdiction of the person accused and of the offense charged and acts within the scope of its lawful powers, its decision and sentence cannot be. reviewed or set aside by the civil courts, by writ of habeas corpus or otherwise.</p> <p>3. Section 25 of Chapter 5930 of the Laws of Florida, Acts of 1909, page 96, is sufficiently broad to embrace commissioned officers of the National Guard of the State of Florida, and, under the authority conferred by the State Constitution, to give general courts martial jurisdiction over such officers.</p> <p>4. Section 23 of Chapter 5930 of the Laws of Florida, Acts of 1909, page 95, expressly adopts the Articles of War governing the armies of the United States, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Constitution and Laws of Florida, and provides that such articles shall be applicable to and govern the National Guard of Florida. A general court martial, convened in this State according to law, has jurisdiction to try a commissioned officer of the National Guard of Florida for an offense cognizable under such Articles of War.</p> <p>5. Where a commissioned officer of the National Guard of Florida has been tried before a general court martial for two offenses and-convicted of each charge, he is not entitled to be discharged in habeas corpus proceedings, even though one of such charges may not have constituted an offense under the Laws of Florida where the other charge does charge an offense under such laws.</p>