CECIL WADE, 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.
Perjury by a witness at a criminal trial does not form the basis of post-conviction relief unless the prosecuting attorney knew the testimony was untrue when used.
Petitioner sought post-conviction relief based on a co-defendant's affidavit recanting prior testimony and claiming petitioner's innocence. The co-def…
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 Witness Perjury cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner, Cecil Wade, appeals an order denying post-conviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
The petitioner submitted an affidavit by a co-defendant, one Cecil Messer, which in effect confessed to the crime and stated that the petitioner here, Cecil Wade, was an innocent bystander and had no part in the commission of the crime. It is alleged that at the original trial Messer implicated the petitioner as a co-perpetrator of the crime. By this means an attempt is made to establish that Messer committed perjury as a result of which the petitioner was convicted.
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 such as this, which attempts to impugn the *460testimony of a witness in a trial nearly eighteen years ago, the proper forum for considering such facts is the Probation and Parole Commission and the Pardon Board and not by further proceedings in the courts.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller v. Wainwright, 238 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1970)…t “the State knowingly used this testimony.” Perjury of a witness in a criminal trial does not form the basis of post-conviction relief unless the prosecuting attorney knew at the time such testimony was used that [*67] it was untrue. Wade v. State, 193 So. 2d 459 (Fla.App.4th, 1967). The allegedly-perjured testimony was given by Officer Simpson in regard to fingerprints. Fingerprints of the petitioner were lifted from the windowsill of the victim’s house and compared with fingerprints taken from the petition…
-
Fast v. State, 221 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…Rather, the rule is that the “confession” of a third person is grounds for a motion for a new trial, but does not compel the trial judge to grant a new trial. See Casias v. United States, 337 F. 2d 354 (10th Cir. 1964); Wade v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 459. What occurred at the hearing here was simply an evaluation by the trial judge that the confession was not worthy of belief. Discrepancies between the facts of the robbery for which appellant was convicted and the testimony of the confessor were add…
-
Bogan v. State, 211 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…r to be perjured testimony, is a recognized ground for relief under former Rule 1. Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 324; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 335; Wade v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 459; Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 529; and Napue v. People of State of Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217. Indeed, in the last cited Napue case the U.S. Supreme Court held: “The principle that a State may not knowingly…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 191 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)