BERNARD BOLENDER, 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 the newly discovered evidence was insufficient to warrant further proceedings or a stay of execution.
Bernard Bolender appealed the denial of his fourth motion for postconviction relief and sought a stay of execution, presenting affidavits claiming con…
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 Stay Of Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bernard Bolender appeals the trial court’s denial of his fourth motion for postconviction relief and requests a stay of execution from this Court. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1). We affirm the trial court’s ruling and deny Bolender’s request for a stay from his execution, which is scheduled to occur tomorrow, July 18, 1995, at 10:05 a.m.
The procedural history of this ease is set forth in our opinion released July 11,1995, in which we approved the trial court’s dismissal of Bolender’s third motion for postconviction relief, and issued a temporary stay to allow Bolender to seek relief in federal court. Bolender v. State, 658 So. 2d 82 (Fla.1995). This morning, Bolender filed a fourth postconviction motion in the trial court and an application for a stay of execution in this Court. The motion and application for stay contain affidavits of inmates who have come forth since July 11, 1995, and claim that Macker told them versions of the murder which are in conflict with Maeker’s trial testimony. Relying on Johnson v. Singletary, 647 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1994), and Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991), Bolender claims that this testimony constitutes newly discovered evidence requiring an evidentiary hearing.
We have considered the motion and application for stay and have determined that the evidence contained within the affidavits is insufficient for us to conclude that further proceedings would probably produce a different result. See Jones, 591 So. 2d at 915-16. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Bolender’s fourth motion for posteonvietion relief and deny the application for stay of execution.
It is so ordered.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2007)…el v. Hutt, 670 So. 2d 64, 67 (Fla.1996) (holding that a funeral director who voluntarily undertook to direct a funeral procession owed a reasonable duty of care to a member of the procession who was injured in a traffic accident); Pate v. Threlkel, 661 So. 2d 278, 279-80, 282 (Fla.1995) (finding a legal duty on the part of a physician to warn the adult daughter of a patient with thyroid cancer that the daughter should be tested for the disease, which she in fact had); City of Pinellas Park v. Brown, 604 So.…
-
Harley L. Vause v. BAY Med. Ctr., 687 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…urse Vause’s death. In 1995, the Florida Supreme Court took occasion to emphasize the provisions of section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1989) defining the legal duty owed by a health care provider in a medical malpractice case. See Pate v. Threlkel, 661 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1995). In that ease, the Supreme Court discussed the provision of the cited statutory section defining the legal duty owed by health care providers in a medical negligence case. With respect to the question of to whom the duty to warn of the na…
-
Saunders v. Willis Dickens, M.D., 151 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2014)…n of all surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by similar and reasonably prudent health care providers. Id. In short, it is to provide the care that a reasonably prudent physician would provide. See Pate v. Threlkel, 661 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla.1995). A physician breaches that duty when he or she does not provide the care that a reasonably prudent physician would provide. See § 766.102, Fla. Stat. (2013). Therefore, in a medical malpractice action, the burden is on the plaintiff…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- Johnson v. Singletary, 647 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1994)
- Bolender v. State, 658 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1995)