PAUL ANDREW LANGSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a claim of newly discovered evidence cannot be raised in a rule 3.850 motion and that the appellant's request for permission to petition for a writ of error coram nobis was legally insufficient.
Appellant sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 based on newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied the m…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Error Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from the denial of a motion seeking postconviction .relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. An evidentiary hearing was held, and the trial court heard testimony and argument in support of appellant’s allegation concerning “newly discovered evidence.” We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion.
A claim of newly discovered evidence cannot be raised in a rule 3.850 motion. We treat this appeal as a request for permission to petition the trial court for writ of error coram nobis. See Hallman v. State, 343 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), aff'd, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979).
Having considered appellant’s request, we find that it is legally insufficient. The alleged facts are not “of such a vital nature that had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented the entry of the judgment.” Hallman, 371 So. 2d at 485 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
AFFIRMED.
OTT, C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacquelin Cipollina v. State, 501 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…s: The facts must be “of such a vital nature that had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented the entry of the judgment.” (Emphasis in original). Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482, 485 (Fla.1979). Langston v. State, 444 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). A review of the record indicates that the trial court correctly applied this test in denying Cipollina’s petition. Both of the trial court’s rulings were procedurally correct, but to end our analysis here would elevate form…
-
Thomas v. State, 476 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ate, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981), or were previously raised on defendant’s appeal and are therefore not proper grounds for the motion. The ground as to newly discovered evidence are not properly cognizable in a motion of this kind. Langston v. State, 444 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The ground as to defendant’s acquittal in another case is without merit. See Sanders v. State, 429 So. 2d 245 (Miss.1983). Affirmed. LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1979)
- Hallman v. State, 343 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)