SCOTT N. ERRICO, 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 reversed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief to the extent the appellant stated a Giglio claim based on alleged false eyewitness testimony known to the prosecutor, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
A defendant stating a Giglio claim based on false eyewitness testimony known to the prosecutor is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on post-conviction relief.
[1] A defendant alleging a Giglio violation must demonstrate that testimony was false, the prosecutor knew it was false, and the statement was material; if a reasonable possi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt appellant's 1985 trial, state eyewitness Patrick Menillo gave testimony; the appellant later filed affidavits contending the testimony was false, t…
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 Giglio Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post conviction relief to the degree appellant states a claim under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), and remand for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. Appellant filed affidavits supporting the contention that at his 1985 trial, State eyewitness Patrick Menil-lo gave false testimony, that he has since recanted, and that the prosecutor knew he was presenting false testimony at the time of the trial. “To establish a Giglio violation, [appellant] must show: (1) that the testimony was false; (2) that the prosecutor knew the testimony was false; and (3) that the statement was material. If there is a reasonable possibility that the false evidence may have affected the judgment of the jury, a new trial is required.” Craig *652 v. State, 685 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Fla.1996) (citation omitted); see also Butler v. State, 946 So.2d 30, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Davis v. State, 31 So.3d 277, 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Cueto v. State, 88 So.3d 1064, 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
We affirm the circuit court’s ruling on all other issues raised in appellant’s motion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972)
- Craig v. State, 685 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1996)
- Butler v. State, 946 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Renard Davis v. State, 31 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Armbruster v. Cooley, 88 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Cueto v. State, 88 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)