WILLIAM FRANCIS SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1966-11-16
No. 912
ANDREWS, Acting C. J., WALDEN, J., and T. FRANK HOBSON, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
191 So. 2d 618 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1966) Positive Treatment
Cited by 16 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a motion to quash the appeal should be granted because the defendant's post-conviction relief petition improperly sought to question witness credibility and evidence sufficiency, which are matters for direct appeal.

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant, convicted of robbery and sentenced to life, sought post-conviction relief alleging a witness committed perjury. The record lacked a tri…

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.

Topics
Direct Appeal Perjury Credibility Of Witnesses Postconviction Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION TO QUASH

PER CURIAM.

■, This matter is before the court on a 'motion of the state to quash the appeal of William Francis Smith, .defendant, from an order denying post-conviction relief.

The defendant.was convicted of robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. His petition for post-conviction . relief alleges that he was convicted upon the testimony of a witness who later admitted that he committed perjury at said trial. The record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the original trial.

At the post-conviction hearing the prosecutor who handled the case testified that, if the testimony of Bishop was perjured, he had no knowledge of such fact. It has been held that perjury committed at trial does not form the basis for post-conviction relief unless the prosecutor knew the testimony was perjured at the time it was presented in court. Austin v. State, Fla. App.1964, 160 So.2d 730.

*619In the hearing before the trial court the defendant’s attorney made reference to the fact that there were eyewitnesses to the crime who also testified. Under such circumstances the petition, in effect, attempts to question the credibility of the witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the jury arrived at a verdict. Such questions cannot be raised under post-conviction procedures, but can only be considered when raised on an appeal from the judgment and conviction. Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 23; Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730.

Motion to quash granted.

ANDREWS, Acting C. J., WALDEN, J., and T. FRANK HOBSON, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Cash v. State, 207 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
    …he prosecuting officials, even if perjury had existed [which was not shown] were not aware of such and, therefore, the appellant would not be entitled to the relief sought. Harris v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 312; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 618; Wade v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 459. For the above stated reasons, the verdict, judgment and sentence here under review is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
  • Wade v. State, 193 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
    …Perjury of a witness at a criminal trial does not form the basis of post-conviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule One unless the prosecuting attorney knew at the time said testimony was used that it was untrue. Smith v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 618. There must be a termination of the right to post-conviction review after the courts have had an opportunity to consider all possible grounds for post-conviction relief, as is the case in this cause. As suggested by the trial judge, in a matter suc…
  • Matera v. State, 254 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
    …SWANN, Chief Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The credibility of a state’s witness is not properly raised by a motion to vacate under Rule 1.850 CrPR. Smith v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 618; and Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730.…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw