Jovan Howard v. Julie L. Jones, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Whether Habeas Corpus was the proper remedy for the petitioner unlawfully detained against his will
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.Whether Habeas Corpus was the proper remedy for the petitioner unlawfully detained against his will because the prosecution unlawfully altered an amended information for burglary dwelling against the petitioner after the amended information had been served upon the petitioner a {prisoner} by including the name Gerald Gordon to the petitioner’s name as an a/k/a in the charge. And whether the unauthorized act of the alteration operates to arrest the power of the trial court to proceed to trial on such indictment or information, that would consequently’ entitle the petitioner to seek his release from the Florida Department of Corrections where he is unlawfully detained and held prisoner against his will in . violation of his constitutional right to due process of law. See’ U.S.C.A. § 14. And the Fla. Constitution. Art. 1§15. 2. And whether the respondents were required to abide by the requirements of due process of law where the unauthorized alteration of the amended information by the act of the prosecuting officer, who amended the information without lawful authority to do so rendered the amended information void. 3. Whether the questions presented are in compliance with State, ex rel, J.H. Wentworth, v. D,C, Coleman, 121 Fla. 13; 163 So.316 (1935) Where Plaintiff in error prisoner challenged the judgment of the Circuit-Court for Dade County (Florida) that denied the prisoner's petition for habeas corpus relief against defendant in error sheriff. Habeas corpus was the proper remedy for a prisoner where the prosecution altered an indictment against a prisoner after the indictment had been served upon the prisoner by changing the first two initials of the prisoner's name in the charge. A grand jury returned an indictment against the prisoner., and the warrant was served. Then, the prosecution, without notice or approval from the prisoner, altered the indictment. The original indictment had 3 listed a certain name as the accused. The alteration served to change the initials of the accused first name so as to correspond with that of the prisoner. The prisoner brought an action for habeas corpus relief in the trial court, but was unsuccessful. He appealed. On review, the court determined that habeas corpus relief was an appropriate remedy in such cases because the prosecution's alteration of the document served as a nolle prosequi of the charge. The court entered judgment in favor of the prisoner. Where it was shown by the record that on march 10" 1932, the county solicitor of Dade County filed in the criminal court of record of that county an information purporting to charge the plaintiff in error with the offense of embezzlement. In this information as filed the solicitor by mistake described an element of the offense charged as having been done by one G.W. Wentworth, whereas J.H. Wentworth was intended to be named. The accused was arrested, gave bond, and was thereupon furnished, as required by statute with a certified copy of the information filed against him. It was after all this had transpired that the county solicitor undertook, by way of alteration of the information, to correct his error in the charging part of the same by changing the name G.W. Wentworth, wherever it appeared therein, to read J.H. Wentworth. The plaintiff in error, J.H. Wentworth, sued out a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Dade County, in which proceeding he advanced the contention that he should be discharged from custody in the instant case because it _ was shown that the sole cause for his detention by the respondent was an arrest . under a capias that had been issued on a criminal information charging him with embezzlement. Such information, so it was alleged, had become void and of no legal effect because of an alleged unlawful and unauthorized alteration made therein by the county solicitor, after the same had been filed and capias oo thereon issued, no notice or hearing, nor order of the court permitting the sam