JOHNNIE LEE HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 motion for post-conviction relief, finding that the appellant failed to prove his claims of false testimony by a witness, even with the prosecutor's alleged knowledge.
No, the appellate court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion because the appellant's allegations were not sustained by the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing.
“We find no merit in the appeal, and affirm.”
This quote states the appellate court's conclusion regarding the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Johnnie Lee Harris, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed an amended motion for relief unde…
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order denying an amended motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, following an evidentiary hearing thereon in the trial court. We find no merit in the appeal, and affirm.
The appellant was indicted in Dade County, charged with murder in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty. A jury trial, in which he was represented by counsel, resulted in a verdict of guilty with a recommendation of mercy. Thereupon he was adjudged guilty as charged and sentenced to imprisonment for life. A motion filed by the appellant under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 was denied for insufficiency. An amended motion was filed by the appellant, presenting the contention that a witness at the trial had given false testimony, with the knowledge of the prosecutor. In the evidentiary hearing which followed in the trial court, the amended motion was denied. On consideration of the record and briefs we agree with the holding of the learned trial judge that the allegations of the amended motion, on which *62relief from the judgment and sentence was sought by the appellant, were not sustained in the evidence. The appeal was filed by the defendant in proper person. Thereafter the public defender was appointed by the circuit court to represent the appellant on the appeal. The public defender concluded the appeal was without merit, and upon so informing this court, was granted permission to withdraw.
No reversible error having been shown, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.