GEORGE CARROLL, JR., 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.
George Carroll, Jr. sought to vacate a prior judgment and sentence, alleging facts that would entitle him to relief. After a full evidentiary hearing where the trial court found the state's evidence more credible than Carroll's, the trial court denied the motion. Carroll appeals, and this court affirms based on the trial court's factual findings and the appellate standard requiring substantial evidence to overturn.
The trial court's judgment is affirmed because the trial court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was the proper forum to determine credibility and the weight of evidence. On appeal, all presumptions favor the correctness of the trial court's judgment, and reversal is warranted only if there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusions.
“On appeal every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the judgment of the trial court. Where as here there are questions of controverted facts, the trial court who saw and heard the witnesses is the proper one to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the foundational appellate standard of deference to trial court factual determinations and witness credibility assessments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarroll filed a motion to vacate a prior judgment and sentence alleging facts supporting relief. At a full evidentiary hearing, Carroll presented evid…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
George Carroll, Jr., filed his motion to vacate a prior judgment and sentence in which he alleged facts, which, if true, would entitle him to relief. The court conducted a full evidentiary hearing at which Carroll produced evidence generally substantiating his allegations. The state’s evidence was almost totally and completely to the contrary. The court made specific and detailed findings of fact in which it determined that Carroll’s alleged grounds for relief were not true and that the true facts were those revealed by the state’s evidence. Carroll appeals contending that the court erred in denying him the relief he sought. In his argument he presents his evidence to us as if it could produce our reversal of the judgment. Appellant overlooks the many principles of law governing appellate courts which under these circumstances require that we affirm the judgment. On appeal every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the judgment of the trial *835court. Where as here there are questions of controverted facts, the trial court who saw and heard the witnesses is the proper one to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Its findings of the true facts has the quality of a jury verdict. Its judgment will be affirmed on appeal unless there is no substantial evidence to support its conclusions. We will not substitute our judgment on those matters for that of the trial court. On an appeal involving questions of fact the appellant undertakes a totally hopeless and futile procedure unless he comes to this court prepared to demonstrate that, after consideration of all the evidence, there is no substantial evidence to support the court’s conclusions.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., ANDREWS, J., and BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harlan A. Blackburn v. State, 314 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ng his background as a known gambler. The state contends that the court in essence reconsidered its ruling at the time the evidence was offered and that such ruling carries a presumption of correctness. We agree with this position. Carroll v. State, 186 So. 2d 834 (Fla.App.1966). It must also be noted that in extensive voir dire examination of the above-referred juror, Crumley, appellant’s attorney asked her if she had any philosophical or religious scruples where gambling was concerned. There ensued several…
-
Durcan v. State, 383 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…’s order in this regard is amply supported by the evidence and, therefore, the appellant has made no error appear on the merits of the voluntariness of his waiver of jury trial. Swarthout v. State, 165 So. 2d 773 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); Carroll v. State, 186 So. 2d 834 (Fla.4th DCA 1966); Cash v. State, 207 So. 2d 18 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). Therefore, the order under review be and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Cash v. State, 207 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…e v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 85; Bryant v. State, supra. Unless there is no substantial evidence to support his conclusions, the trial judge will be affirmed. Swarthout v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 773; Carroll v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 834. The trial judge failed to find that perjured testimony was involved. A review of the record reveals [*19] that this conclusion is amply supported. Hall v. State, 136 Fla. 644, 187 So. 392; Gordon v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 524; Duval v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence