CLIFFORD HALL, 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.
The court held that a motion to set aside a sentence based on perjured testimony must show the testimony was perjured and that prosecuting officials knew it was perjured at the time of use.
Clifford Hall, convicted of robbery, filed a motion to set aside his sentence and judgment, alleging the use of perjured testimony by police officers …
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 Rule 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
Two years after having been convicted for robbery and while serving sentence thereon, the appellant Clifford Hall filed his motion in the criminal court of record in Dade County to set aside the sentence and judgment and for new trial, under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. At the hearing thereon the appellant was represented by the public defender. The court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
The statement of the point in the appellant’s brief shows the matter involved, as follows:
“Did the trial court err in not granting the defendant a hearing under Rule One, so that the defendant might testify as to the allegations in his petition, and produce further evidence in connection thereto, with reference to use of perjured testimony of police officers at his trial?”
In the recent case of Austin v. State of Florida, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So.2d 730, the court said:
“As to appellant’s contention of false swearing or use of perjured testimony, a reading of this portion of the motion shows it to constitute an attempt to argue the credibility of testimony given by certain state witnesses and claimed conflicts in that testimony. Additionally, in order to have a sentence set aside on the ground that perjured testimony was used, it is necessary for the motion to show that the testimony was perjured and that the prosecuting officials, at the time of its use, knew it was perjured. See Black v. United States, 9 Cir.1959, 269 F.2d 38, cert. denied, 1960, 361 U.S. 938, 80 S.Ct 379, 4 L.Ed.2d 357; Enzor v. United States, 5 Cir.1961, 296 F.2d 62, cert. denied, 1962, 369 U.S. *325854, 82 S.Ct. 940, 8 L.Ed.2d 12; United States v. Daniels, D.C.E.D.Pa.1961, 191 F.Supp. 129; also see 28 U.S.C.A., § 2255 (Supp.1963), note 282, pages 136-138. Appellant’s motion to vacate fails to meet this test.”
What was said there is applicable to this case, and on the basis thereof the judgment of the criminal court of record, which denied the appellant’s motion under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bogan v. State, 211 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…timony upon material matters from State witnesses by public prosecutors, known by the latter to be perjured testimony, is a recognized ground for relief under former Rule 1. Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 324; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 335; Wade v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 459; Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 529; and Napue v. People of State of Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217. Indeed, in the last ci…
-
Hall v. State, 183 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…relief, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. In May of 1963, the appellant filed a prior motion to vacate his judgment and sentence. This motion was denied by the trial court, which was affirmed by this court. See: Hall v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 324. The appellant then filed another petition to vacate, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. This petition contained the following grounds: (1) Illegal arrest (2) Unreasonable delay in taking before a committing magistrate. (3) Held inc…
-
Estevez v. State, 206 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ate, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 618; Wade v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 459; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 312; Ingrim v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 805; Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 324; Byers v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 57; and Gilliard v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 902. There is no allegation here or even intimation that any State witness gave perjured testimony, let alone that the prosecuting officials knowingly perm…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Amos Black v. United States, 269 F.2d 38 (9th Cir. 1959)
- Black v. United States, 361 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1960)
- Harris v. Texas, 361 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1960)
- Erwin M. Enzor v. United States, 296 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. 1961)
- Reid v. Richmond, 369 U.S. 854 (U.S. 1962)