GERALD "POPS" BROWN, 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.
This case reviews the denial of a petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, finding that the trial court should further consider the petition based on the allegation of perjured testimony known to the State.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the petition without a formal hearing on the issue of perjured testimony known to the State. The court reversed and remanded for further consideration of this specific ground.
“The above-numbered appeals both question.' the correctness of the trial court's order in denying a petition seeking relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.”
Establishes the nature of the appeal and the lower court's decision being reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a petition seeking relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, alleging multiple grounds for relief. The trial court denied the pe…
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
The above-numbered appeals both question.' the correctness of the trial court’s order in denying a petition seeking relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
The appellant, as petitioner, filed a lengthy petition containing many grounds, all of which we find to be without merit save and except the allegation that at the time of his trial certain of the testimony adduced was perjured and that the State was aware, at the time, that the testimony given was of that character.
The trial judge denied the petition without a formal hearing, and we reverse and remand to the trial court to consider the petition further, on the sole ground of the alleged use of perjured testimony while same was known by the State to be such, in accordance with the views expressed in the following: Austin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So.2d 730; Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 529, (opinion filed March 17, 1964) ; Smith v. United States, 9th Cir.1958, 259 F.2d 125.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bogan v. State, 211 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ses 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 cited Napue case the U.S. Supreme Court held: “…
-
Gerald "Pops" Brown v. State, 187 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…e Lee case is not applicable because it involved a plea of guilty. The petition in the case sub judice alleges that a confession was not voluntary. Affirmed. . We ruled upon the summary denial of the first petition in Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 335. Upon remand, the lower court held a full evidentiary hearing and denied the petition.…
-
Brown v. State, 223 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…the appellant’s attorney present during the aforementioned proceedings. Further details of this particular case may be found in Brown v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 669; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 518; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 335. Appellant now argues that he was deprived of his constitutional right of cross-examination and confrontation, as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and specifically relies upon the case of Bruton v. United…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Bruce Hinson Gammage and Larry v. Gysin, 162 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Smith v. United States, 259 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1958)