ROGERS RUDOLPH BROOKS, 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.
The court held that a conviction will not be collaterally set aside under post-conviction procedures if the issue of perjured testimony was previously considered and determined to be without merit by the trial court.
Defendant Brooks sought post-conviction relief, alleging the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony and that pre-trial publicity deprived him of…
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 Sheppard V. Maxwell cases and more on FLexlaw
Rogers Rudolph Brooks appeals denial of post-conviction relief without a hearing.
Defendant-Brooks and Sie Jenkins, Jr., were tried jointly for conspiracy, breaking and entering and possession of burglary tools. Defendant-Jenkins appealed his conviction, and the matter is now before this court. Defendant-Brooks did not appeal.
Defendant-Brooks sets forth in his petition certain facts to the effect that at the trial the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony of witness, Willie Barnes, which, if true, would entitle him to a new trial.
The transcript of testimony of the trial of the two defendants is on file in this court in connection with the appeal of Jenkins. By referring to said transcript it is determined that the question of the perjury alleged to have been committed by witness, Barnes, and the knowledge of the prosecutor of such facts was brought to the court’s attention by the defendant’s counsel, was thoroughly and exhaustively considered by the court and determined by the court to be without merit.
Where defendant has objected to the alleged use of perjured testimony by the prosecutor and has been afforded full opportunity to explore the matter at trial, a conviction will not collaterally be set aside under Rule One Post-Conviction Procedures, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. See United States v. Pheribo, 2d Cir. 1965, 346 F.2d 559; United States v. Abbinanti, 2d Cir. 1964, 338 F.2d 331. Matters determined by the court during the course of the trial as to the sufficiency of the evidence can only be raised on direct appeal. Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730.
Defendant also alleges the publicity prior to and during the trial deprived him of the judicial serenity and calm to which he was entitled. The record does not reveal facts and circumstances sufficient to bring this case within the rule of Estes v. State of Texas, 1965, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, *88414 L.Ed.2d 543, or Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1507.
Accordingly, the order denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cappetta v. Louie L. Wainwright, 203 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1967)…d 194 (Fla.App.3rd 1964); Burke v. State, 160 So. 2d 523 (Fla.App.1st 1964). . Warner v. Cochran, 135 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1961); Kirkland v. State, 165 So. 2d 774 (Fla.App.3rd 1964); Ziegler v. State, 180 So. 2d 477 (Fla.App.3rd 1965); Brooks v. State, 188 So. 2d 883 (Fla.App. 4th 1966); Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60, 113 So. 736 (1927); Henderson v. State, 174 So. 2d 73 (Fla.App.3rd 1965). . State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla.1967). . Everett v. State, 161 So. 2d 714 (Fla.App.3rd 1964). . See, King v. Wainwr…
-
Ferby v. State, 404 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…certain evidence, see, e.g., Nelson v. State, 281 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Whitlow v. State, 256 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); and the sufficiency of the evidence. See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 194 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Brooks v. State, 188 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 192 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1966). The defendant claims he was inadequately and ineffectually represented by his trial counsel of record because his counsel: did not call his codefendant and other witnesses to testify; faile…
-
Swindle v. State, 202 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…175 So. 2d 208; Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 236. Moreover, such matters were reviewable on appeal. Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730, 732; Harper v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So. 2d 325, 326; Brooks v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 883; Brooks v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So. 2d 303, 304. The Rule 1 motion directed to the conviction and sentence in the case in which the defendant [*133] pleaded guilty failed to present grounds necessitating evidentiary hearing, and the trial judge…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1966)
- Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1965)
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- United States v. Abbinanti, 338 F.2d 331 (2d Cir. 1964)
- United States v. Pheribo, 346 F.2d 559 (2d Cir. 1965)