JERRY LAYNE ROGERS, 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.
This case concerns a defendant's appeal of a summary denial of post-conviction relief. The appellate court found that while trial errors could not be raised for the first time on post-conviction review, claims of perjured testimony and ineffective assistance of counsel were sufficient to warrant further consideration.
Trial errors cannot be raised for the first time on post-conviction review. However, claims of perjured testimony used with the state's knowledge and ineffective assistance of counsel are valid grounds for post-conviction relief if they are sufficient on their face.
[1] Post-conviction relief cannot be used to raise issues that were or could have been litigated on direct appeal.
[2] A defendant may be entitled to post-conviction relief if perjured testimony was used at trial with the state's knowledge.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Post-conviction proceedings may not be used as a vehicle to raise for the first time issues which were or could have been litigated on direct appeal.”
Establishes the rule regarding issues that can be raised on direct appeal versus post-conviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Jerry Layne Rogers sought post-conviction relief, alleging trial errors, the use of perjured testimony, and ineffective assistance of counse…
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 Perjured Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
This is an appeal from an order summarily denying post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Rogers’ motion for post-conviction relief essentially raised three claims for relief: 1) trial errors, 2) use of perjured testimony, and 3) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Post-conviction proceedings may not be used as a vehicle to raise for the first time issues which were or could have been litigated on direct appeal. Raulerson v. State, 462 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1985); Jones v. State, 446 So. 2d 1059 (Fla.1984); Hitchcock v. State, 432 So. 2d 42 (Fla.1983). The trial errors alleged by Rogers are matters which were or could have been raised on direct appeal. The trial court, therefore, was justified in not granting an evidentiary hearing on these claims. See Hitchcock, 432 So. 2d at 43.
However, a defendant may be entitled to post-conviction relief if perjured testimony at trial was used with the state’s knowledge. See Young v. State, 453 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Monson v. State, 443 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Likewise, ineffective assistance of counsel is a well-recognized ground for relief under rule 3.850. Monson, 443 So. 2d at 1062; Allen v. State, 427 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Brown v. State, 409 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Here, Rogers’ claims of perjured testimony and ineffective assistance are sufficient on their face, and if true, may entitle Rogers to post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the portion of the order pertaining to these claims is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court. On remand, the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion as to these allegations and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that Rogers is not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on these allegations. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850; Van Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morris v. State, 493 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…t. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bucherie, 468 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1985); Downs v. State, 453 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1984). . Wright v. State, 491 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Simpson v. State, 479 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Rogers v. State, 467 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.…
-
Prentiss Simpson v. State, 479 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…iary hearing and then rule on Simpson’s allegations.2 REVERSED AND REMANDED. COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . Downs v. State, 453 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1984); State v. Bucherie, 468 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1985). . Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, Rogers v. State, 467 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).…
-
Brown v. State, 502 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is affirmed, because this second petition either alleges matters which were or could have been raised on appeal, Bundy v. State, 490 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.1986), Rogers v. State, 467 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) or which were previously raised in a 3.850 motion and denied. See Christopher v. State, 489 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1986). But for the failure of the trial court to include in its order the language required by Rule 3.850 that the defen…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- VAN Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Hitchcock v. State, 432 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1983)
- Jones v. State, 446 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1984)
- Raulerson v. State, 462 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1985)
- Allen v. State, 427 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Brown v. State, 409 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Monson v. State, 443 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Young v. State, 453 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)