PAUL ULYSSES DEMPS, 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 denial of a motion for relief from conviction. The motion alleged the use of perjured testimony, but the court found no error, noting the state did not knowingly use such testimony and other grounds were legally insufficient or refuted by the record.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for relief. The evidence supported the denial of the claim regarding perjured testimony, and the state did not knowingly use such testimony. The remaining grounds were legally insufficient or contradicted by the record.
“The evidence supports the conclusion of the trial judge denying relief on that ground.”
Establishes the trial court's finding based on evidence regarding the perjured testimony claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul Ulysses Demps, convicted of robbery and aggravated assault, filed a motion for relief from conviction. The motion alleged the state used perjured…
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
The appellant Paul Ulysses Demps seeks reversal of an order of the trial court denying his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, He had been convicted of robbery and aggravated assault on August 12, 1964. On consideration of the record and briefs we find no error has been made to appear.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the ground of the motion which alleged use by the state of perjufed testimony. The evidence supports the conclusion of the trial judge denying relief on that ground. Moreover, it was not alleged or shown that perjured testimony was knowingly produced or used' by the state. Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 529; Byers v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 57; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 312. As to the remaining grounds of the motion under Criminal Procedure Rule the motion was denied summarily. In so *228ruling the trial judge was eminently correct. As to such other grounds, each was refuted by the record or as alleged was legally insufficient.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bruce Hinson Gammage and Larry v. Gysin, 162 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Byers v. State, 163 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Harris v. State, 167 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)