RICHARD LEE MONTGOMERY, 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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for post-conviction relief based on recantation testimony.
Appellant sought post-conviction relief, claiming newly discovered evidence in the form of recanted testimony from a state witness. The trial court co…
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 Recantation Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Montgomery appeals from a denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, after the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. He claimed newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial because Anton Gardner, his nephew and a state witness, had recanted the testimony he gave at trial. We affirm.
The standard for reviewing recantation of testimony as grounds for a new trial is to deny relief unless the trial court is satisfied the recantation testimony is true. State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174, 177 (Fla. 1997); Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730, 735 (Fla.1994). In this case it was alleged 1 that the trial court heard testimony from three witnesses who allegedly pressured Gardner to perjure himself or who knew about his perjury. They contradicted Gardner’s testimony. In addition, the trial court allegedly reviewed a letter written by Gardner to Raul Zambrano which was inconsistent with his recantation testimony. The trial court obviously found any recantation testimony by Gardner not to be credible and found that there was ample competent evidence to support his conclusion. Montgomery has failed to show an abuse of discretion. Spaziano; Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024 (Fla.1981); Stone v. State, 616 So. 2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
We also find Montgomery’s other claims to be without merit.2
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . There was no transcript of this hearing, but the parties agreed upon certain facts on appeal.
. These claims were: that the trial court erred in permitting testimony of an unidentified witness which was contrary to evidence presented at trial, or that his conviction rested on uncorroborated evidence; that he was denied due process when the trial judge allowed the case to go to the jury absent any evidence other than that given by Gardner; and that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by defense counsel's failure to sufficiently investigate Gardner to detect his perjury.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Borders v. State, 657 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…ant is not entitled to a new trial. This appeal followed. “The standard for reviewing recantation of testimony as grounds for a new trial is to deny relief unless the trial court is satisfied the recantation testimony is true.” Montgomery v. State, 826 So. 2d 531, 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174, 177 (Fla. 1997); Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730, 735 (Fla. 1994)). The outcome of this case hinges entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses, and as the first-hand observe…
-
Russell v. Sec'y Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2021)…ral right. The state court denied Russell’s request for a new trial because it found Olsen’s recantation was not truthful—the Florida law requirement for granting a new trial based on recanted testimony. Dkt. 35-1 at 4–5 (citing Montgomery v. State, 826 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174, 177 (Fla. 1997), and Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730, 735 (Fla. 1994)). Russell’s Rule 3.850 motion also did not mention the Constitution or federal law. Ex. 1h 1020–21. The rejection of O…
Authorities Cited
- Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1981)
- Lancelot Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1997)
- Stone v. State, 616 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)