KELVIN STEWART, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2003-12-24
No. 3D02-1358
Before COPE, GODERICH and SHEPHERD, JJ.
861 So. 2d 110 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2003) Negative Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Giglio Violation Preservation Of Error Preservation Of Error For Appeal Perjury

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Giglio Violation cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Kelvin Stewart appeals his conviction for two counts of armed robbery and one count of armed burglary. We affirm.

First, the defense claims that the State knowingly offered false testimony at trial in violation of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), was never raised in the trial court and is not, in our view, fundamental error. This claim is thus not properly preserved for appellate review. See § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (2002).

Second, assuming for purposes of discussion that the claim had been preserved, it is clearly without merit. “To demonstrate perjury, [a party] must also show more than mere inconsistencies.” Maharaj v. State, 778 So. 2d 944, 956 (Fla.2000) (citations omitted). The two witnesses whose testimony was in partial conflict both testified before the jury, and the question what weight or significance to give to the conflict was a matter for the jury to decide.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • MacKey v. State, 55 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
    …(“Fundamental error is that which ‘reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.’ ”) (citation omitted). But see Stewart v. State, 861 So. 2d 110, 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (defendant’s claim that the state knowingly offered false testimony at trial in violation of Giglio “was never raised in the trial court and is not, in our view, fundamental error”). Thus, we are compelled to determine wheth…
  • Blackmon v. State, 58 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
    …of the same scheme or transaction was to vacate the conviction for the lesser offense. This court followed Ridley in Alexander v. State, 470 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and we have continued to adhere to that decision. See, e.g., Drew v. State, 861 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Day v. State, 793 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Golden v. State, 688 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Schummer v. State, 657 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Gray v. State, 611 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Day v. State, 531 So.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw