PAUL WILLIAM SCOTT, 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.
Paul William Scott, a death-sentenced inmate, appealed the trial court's denial of his post-conviction relief motion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Scott's motion failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because his verification used qualifying language ('to the best of his knowledge') rather than an unqualified oath that all allegations were true and correct.
A post-conviction relief motion is not properly under oath as required by rule 3.850 if the verification contains qualifying language that would allow a defendant to escape perjury liability for false allegations. An oath must contain an affirmative statement that the allegations are true and correct without qualification.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 must be under oath, and a verification containing qualifying language such as "to the b…
[2] A defendant must affirmatively state that allegations in a motion for post-conviction relief are true and correct to satisfy the oath requirement.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Using this qualifying language, a defendant could file a motion for post-conviction relief based upon a false allegation of fact without fear of conviction for perjury.”
Explains why the court rejects qualifying language in oaths; it would undermine the integrity of post-conviction proceedings by allowing defendants to file false allegations with impunity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and subsequent habeas c…
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 Perjury cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Justice.
Paul William Scott appeals the order of the trial court denying his motion for post-conviction relief without prejudice to his filing a sworn motion. We affirm.
Scott was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. We affirmed his conviction and sentence. Scott v. State, 411 So. 2d 866 (Fla.1982). Subsequently, we denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus and petition for writ of error coram nobis. Scott v. Wainwright, 433 So. 2d 974 (Fla.1983).
He recently filed a motion to vacate his judgment and sentence. His motion concluded with the following verification:
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Paul William Scott, who, being first duly sworn, says that he has personal knowledge of the allegations in the foregoing motion to vacate judgment and/or sentence and that the allegations and statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
The trial court held that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 requires that this motion shall be under oath and that the motion submitted by Scott was not under oath as contemplated by rule 3.850 because of the qualifying words “to the best of his knowledge.” It stated that this rule of requiring that the motion under consideration be under oath is the only effective way to prevent the use of false allegations in motions for post-conviction relief.
The trial court correctly held that Scott’s verification was not an oath as contemplated by rule 3.850 because of the qualifying language contained therein. Using this qualifying language, a defendant could file a motion for post-conviction relief based upon a false allegation of fact without fear of conviction for perjury. If the allegation proved to be false, the defendant would be able to simply respond that his verification of the false allegation had been “to the best of his knowledge” and that he did not know that the allegation was false. We require more than that. The defendant must be able to affirmatively say that his allegation is true and correct. The form adopted by this Court for the filing of motions for post-conviction relief contains the following language for the oath:
Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared _, who first being duly sworn, says that he is the Defendant in the above-styled cause, that he has read the foregoing Motion for Post-Conviction Relief and has personal knowledge of the facts and matters therein set forth and alleged; and that each and all of these facts and matters are true and correct.
(your signature)
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.987; In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 353 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1977). The instructions to the form for this motion specifically provide that: “Any false statement of a material fact may serve as the basis for prosecution and conviction for perjury.” Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.987. Since Scott’s motion was not under oath as required by rule 3.850, the trial court properly denied his motion without prejudice to filing a sworn motion.
Accordingly, we affirm.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (82 total)
-
Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1993)…11, 212 (Fla.1986), we described how a prisoner represented by counsel can satisfy the oath requirement in a rule 3.850 motion to alleviate our concern about the use of false allegations in motions for postconviction relief. See also Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.1985). Based on Gorham, Anderson’s motion was properly denied. However, Anderson claims that as in Gorham and Scott, denial of the motion on this ground should be without prejudice. We agree that this kind of omission from a rule 3.850 motion w…
-
Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1995)…such person violated a criminal law of this state within the jurisdiction of the magistrate to whom the complaint is presented. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.120. Johnson principally relies on State v. Rodriguez, 523 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1988), and Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.1985), for the proposition that an affidavit including a reservation “to the best knowledge” is insufficient. However, these cases are readily distinguishable, because both dealt not with arrest warrants but with affidavits supporting trial ple…
-
State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993)…t to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Rule 3.850(c) requires that such motions be under oath, and the required oath is the one set out in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987.1 Gorham v. State, 494 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1986); Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.1985). In addition to a notarized oath such as the one in rule 3.987, however, section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1991), provides that a signed declaration can substitute for a notarized oath if it contains the following language: “Under penalti…
Previewing 3 of 82 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Scott v. State, 411 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1982)
- Scott v. Louie L. Wainwright, 433 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1983)
- In re Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure (Rule 3.850-Model Form for Post Conviction Relief), 353 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1977)