BRUCE HINSON GAMMAGE AND LARRY V. GYSIN, APPELLANTS,
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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. The petition alleged conviction based on perjured testimony known to be false by a police officer, but failed to allege the prosecuting officials' knowledge of the perjury.
Yes, the trial court's denial of relief was appropriate because the petition was insufficient without alleging the prosecuting officials' knowledge of the perjured testimony, supported by sufficient evidence.
“The petition did not allege that the State prosecuting officials were aware of the falsity of the alleged perjured testimony and, failing such allegation supported by sufficient documentary evidence or affidavits to this effect, the petition was insufficient and the actions of the trial judge in denying relief under same was appropriate.”
This quote explains the core reason for affirming the trial court's decision, highlighting the deficiency in the petition.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought relief from their convictions, alleging they were convicted based on perjured testimony. They claimed a police officer knew the test…
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal, the appellants seek review of an adverse order denying the relief sought in the trial court, by petition filed under the authority of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
The gist of the petition was that they had been convicted by perjured testimony of a witness, which was known by a police officer to be perjured at the time of such testimony. The petition did not allege that the State prosecuting officials were aware of the falsity of the alleged perjured testimony and, failing such allegation supported by sufficient documentary evidence *530or affidavits to this effect, the petition was insufficient and the actions of the trial judge in denying relief under same was appropriate. See: Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730, opinion filed February 14, 1964; Wild v. State of Oklahoma, 10th Cir.1951, 187 F.2d 409; Sears v. United States, Sth Cir.1959, 265 F.2d 301; Anno., 2 L.Ed.2d 1575, 1583 and cases cited therein..
This opinion does not attempt to rule on the question of the effect of perjury by a law enforcement official as to knowledge by imputation to prosecuting officials.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Matrascia v. State, 384 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Garmise, 382 So. 2d 769 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); State v. Matera, 266 So. 2d 661 (Fla.1972); State v. Mears, 256 So. 2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), and Gammage v. State, 162 So. 2d 529 (Fla.3d DCA 1964).…
-
Byers v. State, 163 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…tted perjury,” not accompanied by an allegation that the state prosecuting officials were aware of the falsity of the alleged prejured testimony, did not constitute a ground for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. Gamage v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So. 2d 529; Austin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So. 2d 730. Returning to a consideration of the ground of the motion first mentioned, which charged defendant was denied the right to [*59] obtain witnesses and to have process issued for witnesses on his behalf…
-
Bogan v. State, 211 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…nd 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 cited Napue case the U.S. Supreme Court held: “The principle that a State may not knowingly use false evidence, including false testimony, t…
Previewing 3 of 19 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)
- Wild v. State OF Okla., 187 F.2d 409 (10th Cir. 1951)
- Tiny Glen A. Sears v. United States, 265 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Bruce Hinson Gammage and Larry v. Gysin, 154 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)