From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Emmett v. State

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A
Sep 28, 1956
89 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1956)

Opinion

September 28, 1956.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Clay County, W.A. Stanly, J.

Clifford J. Krueger, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


Appellant seeks modification of a judgment of conviction and sentence to 15 years in the State Prison for commission of the offense of manslaughter to which he pleaded guilty.

It is contended that the circumstances reflected by the record justify the conclusion that the sentence was excessive and constituted cruel and unusual punishment within the prohibitions of Section 8 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. and amendment Article VIII of the Constitution of the United States.

The position of the appellant is adequately disposed of by the decisions of this court in Walker v. State, Fla. 1950, 44 So.2d 814; and La Barbera v. State, Fla. 1953, 63 So.2d 654. There is nothing appearing in the record before us that would justify any recession from the decisions cited. The matters and things set out in the record and briefs may be appropriate for consideration by the Pardon Board, but they do not justify the intervention of this court.

On the basis of the authorities cited, the judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

DREW, C.J., and TERRELL, HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Emmett v. State

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A
Sep 28, 1956
89 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1956)
Case details for

Emmett v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT OWEN EMMETT, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:Supreme Court of Florida. Division A

Date published: Sep 28, 1956

Citations

89 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1956)

Citing Cases

Tilghman v. Culver

Petitioner's crime is delineated in § 810.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which provides a fifteen year maximum…

Stanford v. State

In Nowling v. State, 151 Fla. 584, 10 So.2d 130, we approved the rule that an appellate court had the power…