BILLY SANDERS, 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 writ of error coram nobis, holding that the newly discovered evidence was insufficient to have prevented the original judgment. This decision was made in conjunction with a separate appeal by the same appellant for a new trial.
No, the newly discovered evidence was not sufficient to have prevented the original judgment, and therefore the petition for the writ was not well-founded.
“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 core legal standard applied by the court in evaluating the petition for writ of error coram nobis.
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 appellate court reviewed the evidence and the record, conside…
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, TJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isiah Hamilton v. State, 237 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…Appellant has appealed from this order. Appellant 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 c…
-
First S. Ins. Co. v. Ocean State Bank, 562 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…Fla. 1st DCA 1961), cert. denied, 136 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1961). For its contention that the doctrine of estoppel applies to defeat the claim of the surety, the bank relies upon this court’s opinion in General Finance Corp. v. East Lake Auto Sales Co., 190 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1967). In East Lake an automobile wholesaler delivered several automobiles to an automobile dealer, together with appropriately executed title documents. Upon receipt of the automobiles and titl…1 / 2
-
Sanders v. State, 190 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- la Rocca v. State, 151 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Sanders v. State, 190 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)