Case ID: so2d_64/html/0176-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DIXON v. MAYO.
    Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.
    April 7, 1953.
    E. M. Dixon, in pro. per.
    Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen. and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard upon the original writ of habeas corpus and the respondent’s return. It now appears to the court that the petitioner was not entitled to the writ because his period of incarceration had not expired due to the provisions of the sentence that thirty days be added to the original period in the event he did not pay the costs, and his failure to pay the same.

ROBERTS, C. J., 'and THOMAS, HOBSON and DREW, JT., concur.