GERALD "POPS" BROWN, 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.
Gerald Brown appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, claiming the state knowingly used perjured testimony at trial. After this Court previously reversed and remanded for further consideration, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and again denied the motion, finding Brown failed to prove the alleged perjury.
The trial court's denial of Brown's motion to vacate was affirmed because Brown failed to meet his burden of proving that the state knowingly used perjured testimony and that this deprivation denied him a fair trial.
“The burden is on the movant to show a deprivation of his right to a fair trial.”
Establishes the legal standard and burden of proof for motions challenging conviction based on alleged perjured testimony.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGerald Brown filed a motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, alleging the state knowingly used perjured testimony at his trial. A…
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 Motion For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Gerald Brown, filed a motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The trial court summarily denied the motion. Upon appeal to this Court we reversed the order summarily denying the motion and remanded the cause 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 * * See Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 335.
The trial judge further considered the motion and entered an order returning the appellant to the trial court for a hearing. Thereafter, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which testimony was taken and upon consideration thereof, the following order was entered:
“Pursuant to the mandate of the Appellate Court this cause is again before this Court on the said motion to vacate judgment and sentence, and the Court having heard testimony offered by the defendant in support of his motion, and having heard extensive argument of counsel, it is the finding of this Court that the defendant Gerald 'Pops’ Brown has failed to produce any proof of the alleged itse at his trial of perjured testimony while same was known *519by the State to be such, and therefore, it is,
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the said motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 he and is hereby denied.”
The movant having again appealed to this Court, we have examined the record in the light of his briefs and hold that no error has been shown. The burden is on the movant to show a deprivation of his right to a fair trial. Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 487.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 223 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…based upon an illegal arrest. At no time was 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 specific…
-
Williams v. State, 202 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 28. (d) The “Transcript of record of said trial” shows that the State’s witnesses testified falsely. Authority contra: Austin v. State, supra; Harris v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So. 2d 312: Brown v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So. 2d 518; Byers v. State, Fla. App.1964, 163 So. 2d 57; Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 529. The order appealed from is therefore Affirmed. LILES, C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.…
-
Gerald "Pops" Brown v. State, 252 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…convicted. No appeal was taken from this conviction; however, the appellant has been before this court on previous occasions involving post-conviction proceedings. See: Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 335; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 518; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 669; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 337, Fla. cert. den. mem., Fla.1969, 229 So. 2d 866, U.S. cert. den. mem. (1970), 397 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 1009, 25 L.Ed.2d 262. In the latter cited opinion, th…
Authorities Cited
- Gerald "Pops" Brown v. State, 163 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Murray v. State, 172 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)