JAMES DALE PURKHISER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT-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 appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder, which was reduced to second-degree murder by the Florida Supreme Court due to insufficient evidence o…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM: In 1966 a jury in a Florida state court convicted James D. Purkhiser of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. The Florida Supreme Court, on direct appeal, held that the evidence was insufficient to warrant submission of the issue of premeditation to the jury and, therefore, was insufficient to sustain a conviction for first-degree murder. The Florida Supreme Court held, however, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a charge of murder in the second-degree and remanded the case for resentencing. Purkhiser v. State, Fla.1968, 210 So. 2d 448. On remand, the state court imposed a sentence of 42 years and two months. In his petition for habeas corpus filed in the district court, Purkhiser alleges numerous grounds for relief.1 The district court held that petition had exhausted his available state remedies2 and denied his petition, assigning reasons.
The district court’s opinion is reported at 338 F.Supp.
369.
On this appeal from the denial of ha-beas relief, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error in the trial court’s determinations as to the issues raised in the habeas petition. The petitioner complains of the trial court’s failure to grant him a hearing on “newly discovered evidence”. The “new evidence” is an unsigned, undated, and un-notarized affidavit by a fellow-prisoner stating that one of the Government witnesses lied at the trial. This “new evidence” was insufficient to require the district judge to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed. . These grounds for relief were: 1. Eyewitnesses committed perjury at his trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Headrick v. Cypress Gardens Citrus Prods., Inc., 210 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1968)
- Purkhiser v. State, 210 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1968)