CHARLES E. HORNER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Horner sought review of a summary judgment granting him a new trial based on a petition for writ of error coram nobis in a criminal action. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that summary judgments do not require findings of fact and that Horner received the relief he would have obtained if a jury had favorably decided his petition.
The trial court was not required to include findings of fact in the summary judgment. Because Horner received the identical relief (a new trial) that he would have obtained if he had prevailed at a jury trial on his coram nobis petition, no error occurred.
“By the summary final judgment here under review, he secured the identical relief he would have secured if his petition and evidence had been favorably approved by a jury.”
Establishes that Horner received the relief he sought and therefore no error occurred
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHorner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis seeking a new trial in a criminal action. The trial court granted him a new trial by summary fin…
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 Writ Of Error Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of a favorable summary final judgment granting him a new trial in a criminal action, which arose out of a petition for writ of error coram nobis.
By the petition, .the appellant sought a new trial. By the judgment here under review, he was granted a new trial. The appellant contends he was entitled to findings of fact to be set forth in the summary final judgment, and that the findings of fact which were set forth in the judgment were erroneous. The issues presented on a writ of error coram nobis are tried as any other civil action, notwithstanding the fact that they might be filed in .a criminal proceeding. See: Chambers v. State, 117 Fla. 642, 158 So. 153; 7 Fla.Jur., Coram Nobis, § 16. On the issues as made by the petition and the answer, the matters in conflict are to be resolved by a jury. See: Chambers v. State, supra; Hysler v. State, 315 U.S. 411, 316 U.S. 642, 62 S.Ct. 688, 86 L.Ed. 932; 146 Fla. 593, 1 So.2d 628; 7 Fla. Jur., Coram Nobis, § 20. If the appellant had prevailed at a jury trial, the verdict would have to grant him a new trial. By the summary final judgment here under review, he secured the identical relief he would have secured if his petition and evidence had been favorably approved by a jury. Therefore, no error has been made to appear.
It is not incumbent upon a trial judge to make findings of fact in a ruling on a summary judgment. See: Sawyer Industries v. Advertects, Inc., Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 692; Rawls v. Ziegler, Fla.1958, 107 So.2d 601; Rule 1.36(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. The very nature of the rule which permits summary judgments, which recites that they may be entered when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” indicates that it is not the function of a trial judge to make findings of fact and any made are purely surplusage. Therefore, so much of the summary final judgment which granted the petitioner the relief he sought is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hysler v. Florida, 315 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1942)
- Isiah (Izell) Chambers v. State, 117 Fla. 642 (Fla. 1934)
- Rawls v. Ziegler, 107 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1958)
- Schenectady Union Publ'g Co. v. Sweeney, 316 U.S. 642 (U.S. 1942)
- Hysler v. Florida, 316 U.S. 642 (U.S. 1942)
- Hysler v. State, 146 Fla. 593 (Fla. 1941)