Legal Opinion

Porter v. Cochran

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided October 5, 1960PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

The court has re-examined the petition for writ of habeas corpus and has studied the return of the respondent. It now appears that the petitioner agreed over his signature “to proceed with a hearing on the charges of parole violation without an attorney and before only one member of the Parole Commission(Italics supplied.) This representation to the Parole Commissioner is completely out of harmony with the representation, or rather misrepresentation, made by the petitioner to this court.

It is, therefore, ordered that he remain in custody and that the writ of habeas corpus issued in his behalf…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Gibbs v. CochranSupreme Court of Florida · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API