Hill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 29, 1966

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1966-03-29

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“in custody under Sentence of a court established by the Laws of Florida claiming the right to be released”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Demps v. State, 224 So. 2d 769 - Reynolds v. State

Relies on State ex rel. Borden Co. v. Langley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-03-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1997

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The order of the trial court which is challenged on this appeal, denying appellant’s motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, for relief from a judgment and sentence for the crime of armed robbery, is affirmed on the ground that the appellant is not in custody under sentence of a court established by the laws of Florida. The record disclosed that appellant is in custody in New Jersey under a sentence of a court of that state. Under the wording of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 a movant is required to be “in custody under Sentence of a court established by the Laws of Florida.’’ See Johnson v. State, Fla.1966, 184 So.2d 161. The fact that the appellant may be subject to be confined in Florida following his release in New Jersey, does not furnish a basis for a present application under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, because of the wording of the rule as referred to above.

¶2Affirmed.