Skip to main content

In re Robinson

Citations

  • 73 Fla. 1068
  • 75 So. 604
  • 1917 Fla. LEXIS 547

Syllabus

<p>1. Habeas. Corpus is not a remedy for relief against indictments charging criminal offences defectively or in artificially, though it seems to be a remedy where an indictment charges as an offence an act which, at the time of its commission, the law did not make criminal. In the former case the detention of the accused is not without jurisdiction, though in the latter it is held to be so on the ground that there is no law punishing the act.</p> <p>2. Where habeas corpus is invoked to obtain the discharge of a person held in custody to answer a charge of crime, it must be shown that the statute under which the charge is made is invalid or that the charge as made is not merely defective in its allegations, but wholly fails to state any offence under the laws of the state.</p> <p>3. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a motion to quash or a writ of error or an appeal.</p> <p>4. The right to attack an information by the writ of habeas corpus is more limited than is permitted in motions to quash and in arrest, and may avail only when the offence charged does not' constitute a crime under the laws of the State, by reasons of the unconstitutionality of the statute invoked or when there is a total failure to allege a crime under any statute; inartificiality in pleading will not avail.</p> <p>5. Where an information -alleges that the defendant being the owner of an automobile did use and operate the same in this state and county more than fifteen days without' paying the licence tax required by law, under the statute requiring a ■ licence tax of the owner “operating” an automobile in this State, and making it a misdemeanor for failure to comply with the Statute, if tile information is defective because it does not allege that the defendant’s automobile was operated upon the public highways of the 'county, such defect would not render a proper conviction under it illegal or void even though it may be erroneous. An erroneous judgment of conviction m

Judges: Browne, Ellis, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.