JOHN WESLEY BUCHANAN, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief. The court held that the defendant's bare allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and inadequate trial preparation time were insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
No, the appellant's allegations were insufficient to require an evidentiary hearing. Bare allegations without supporting factual basis do not meet the threshold for further inquiry.
“This bare allegation without a supporting factual basis is insufficient to require the trial court to conduct a full evidentiary inquiry into all of the evidence presented at the trial.”
Establishes the standard for requiring an evidentiary hearing on claims of prosecutorial misconduct.
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, John Wesley Buchanan, filed a second motion for relief from judgment, alleging that the State knowingly used perjured testimony from 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 Rule 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
John Wesley Buchanan brings this appeal from the trial court’s summary denial of his second motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Appellant alleges in the motion now before us that the State knowingly used perjured testimony in his trial. The allegation is confined to the bare statement “that the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony of the State’s principal witness,. Louise Doti, and three police officers.” This bare allegation without a supporting factual basis is insufficient to require the trial court to conduct a full evi-dentiary inquiry into all of the evidence *226presented at the trial. See Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 529; Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730; Sears v. United States, 5th Cir. 1959, 265 F.2d 301.
A second ground suggested in the motion is that appellant’s counsel did not have adequate time to prepare for trial. This allegation was insufficient under the rule stated in McCray v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 181 So.2d 729; and State v. Daniels, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 44. Cf., Watson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 887.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Merlin Evans v. State, 204 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Buchanan v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 225, and Hammond v. United States, 309 F. 2d 935 (4th Cir. 1962).…
-
House v. State, 199 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…support of such general conclusion on the part of the pleader. Such bare allegation as made in the motion was not sufficient to require that the trial court hold a hearing to consider all of the evidence adduced at the trial. See Buchanan v. State, 184 So. 2d 225 (Fla.App.3d, 1966); Gammage v. State, 162 So. 2d 529 (Fla.App.3d, 1964); Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla.App.2d, 1964). Next, House argued that his constitutional rights were violated because members of the Negro race were arbitrarily and syst…
-
Blunt v. State, 203 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…f the State.” Such allegation is confined to a bare conclusion without any supportive factual basis and is therefore insufficient to require the trial court to hold a full evi-dentiary inquiry into the evidence given at the trial. Buchanan v. State, 184 So. 2d 225 (Fla.App.3d 1966). Appellant further grounds his motion upon the contention that he was denied his constitutional rights because negroes were systematically excluded from the grand jury that indicted him and the petit jury before which he was tried…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Tiny Glen A. Sears v. United States, 265 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Watson v. State, 169 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- McCRAY v. State, 181 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- State v. Daniels, 178 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)