Case Name: William Benjamin CRAIG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1965-10-13
Citations: 179 So. 2d 202
Docket Number: No. 34101
Parties: William Benjamin CRAIG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: THORN AL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ-, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 179
Pages: 202–210

Head Matter:
William Benjamin CRAIG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 34101.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 13, 1965.
Howard W. Dixon, Tobias Simon, Maurice Rosen, Miami, Jack Greenberg and Leroy D. Clark, New York City, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant Craig was convicted of the crime of rape and sentenced to pay the supreme penalty. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Craig v. State, Fla., 168 So.2d 747.
Craig filed in the trial court a "Motion for reduction of sentence from death to life." Allegedly, he moved under Section 921.24, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which authorizes the correction of an illegal sentence in a criminal case. By his motion, the appellant contended that:
(a) Sec. 794.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.r which imposes the death sentence-for the crime of rape, is violative-of the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment prescribed by the Eighth Amendment,. Constitution of the United States.
(b) Sec. 794.01, supra, is- patently unconstitutional because it requires the trial jury simultaneously to determine both guilt or inno- - cence and the pgnalty. *C
(c) Sec. 794.01 is unconstitutional as applied to appellant. It is alleged that statistics reveal a pattern of discrimination against negroes in the imposition of the death sentence. Craigj is a negro. i
The Circuit Judge denied the Motion and expressly upheld the validity of Section 794.01, supra, against all attacks leveled at it. Craig appeals. |
We have considered 4he Motion as a collateral, post conviction assault on a judgment of conviction within the scope of our Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Regardless of the title of the document, its purpose is to attack the judgment on constitutional grounds. We, therefore, treat appellant's Motion as if it were filed under Rule 1, supra.
We take jurisdiction because the trial judge passed directly on the validity of Section 794.01, supra. Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A. We do not construe the instant judgment as one imposing the death penalty. That was; done by the original judgment of conviction; which was assaulted by the post conviction; Motion. The judgment here was final because the Circuit Judge had fully completed his judicial labor. We regard it as appealable just as any other Rule 1 order is appealable. We have held that such orders will be reviewed by this Court, or an appropriate District Court, depending upon the content of the order. Roy v. Wainwright, Fla., 151 So.2d 825. Where, as here, such an order passes directly on the validity of a state statute it comes directly to the Supreme Court from the trial court. We have said that the procedure is the same as in habeas corpus. Mitchell v. Wainwright, Fla., 155 So.2d 868. When the order does not bring the case within our appellate jurisdiction, it should go to the proper District Court.
On the merits we find that the Circuit Judge ruled correctly in sustaining the validity of the statute against the attack made upon it.
The judgment is affirmed.
THORN AL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, O'CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ-, concur.
THOMAS, J., dissents.
ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.