GENE WOLFE, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, finding that the newly discovered evidence would not have prevented the original judgment. The court noted that the underlying judgment was being appealed separately.
No, the newly discovered evidence was not sufficient because it would not have prevented the original judgment.
“It is our view that the newly discovered evidence which forms the basis of the petition for writ of error coram nobis is not such that, had it been known to the court prior to the entry of judgment, it would have prevented the judgment that was rendered.”
This quote establishes the legal standard for granting a writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence.
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 sought a writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied the petition. The appellant appealed this …
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 Writ Of Error Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause has been orally argued before the court, and the briefs and record on appeal have been read and given full consideration. It is our view that the newly discovered evidence which forms the basis of the petition for writ of error coram nobis is not such that, had it been known to the court prior to the entry of judgment, it would have prevented the judgment that was rendered. This being true, the petition was not well-founded in law, and the trial court was correct in refusing to issue the writ.1 The judgment assaulted in this proceeding was appealed to this court by appellant and has resulted in our decision reversing the judgment and remanding the cause for a new trial by opinion filed this date.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SACK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 324 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…t completely candid in his answers to the questions cited above. Appellant was unable to impeach Beckett’s testimony in these matters due to his lack of full knowledge of the terms of the Beckett negotiations. In this Court’s case of Wolfe v. State, 190 So. 2d 397 (Fla.App. 1st, 1966), we held that it is a deprivation of due process for a conviction to be obtained through the use of false evidence, and that it is of no consequence that the falsehood bore upon the witness’ credibility rather than directly upon…
-
Wolfe v. State, 190 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
-
Isiah Hamilton v. State, 237 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…ant acknowledges that the relief sought is traditionally obtainable through petition for writ of coram nobis. We agree. See Ex Parte Welles, Fla.1951, 53 So. 2d 708. Cf. Sanders v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 190 So. 2d 399; Wolfe v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 190 So. 2d 397. However, it is urged that the general concepts applicable to issuance of writs of coram nobis are also applicable to CrPR 1.850. Thus CrPR 1.850 encompasses any relief traditionally allowable through coram nobis, and for this reason appellant’s pet…
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
- Wolfe v. State, 190 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- la Rocca v. State, 151 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)