GEORGE CONYERS, 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.
A mere allegation of knowing use of perjured testimony without substantiating facts and documents does not require a full evidentiary hearing under CrRP 1.850.
Appellant alleged the plaintiff knowingly allowed a witness to commit perjury. The trial judge denied an evidentiary hearing on this allegation. The a…
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 Knowing Use Of Perjured Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of an order denying him relief pursuant to CrRP 1.850, 33 F.S.A.
This appellant has been given a full evidentiary hearing on a prior CrRP 1.850 petition. That proceeding questioned issues not raised by this petition. In the instant case, the trial judge denied an evidentiary hearing on these allegations:
“That the plaintiff in the instant case knowingly and wilfully allowed his key witness (Eleanor Stanfield), to commit perjury on the witness stand without correcting the perjured testimony, thereby rendering the judgment and sentence in said case null and void.”
Certainly, the decisions of our state courts are uniform in holding that the wilful use by public prosecutors of false testimony concerning material matters, when such testimony is known by the state to be perjured testimony, is grounds for relief under former Rule 1, now CrRP 1.850. Bogan v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 74, 77 and cases cited therein.
But, coupled with that holding is another equally compelling rule which was designed to give a trial judge the most advantageous opportunity to determine whether a petitioner’s allegation justified the time and expense of the state in defense of those allegations. That rule may be summarized as: A mere allegation of the knowing use of perjured testimony without substantiating facts and documents, does not require full evidentiary hearing pursuant to CrRP 1.850. Simmons v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 659; Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 529; Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730. We hold that this latter rule controls this case and therefore, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 215 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…to have spent [*618] with the accused. An allegation that counsel did not interview the accused prior to trial, standing alone, does not constitute grounds upon which relief pursuant to CrRP 1.850 can be granted. See Conyers v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 616 (Third District Court of Appeal). See also State v. Barton, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 241, which sets forth the reasoning of this rule as developed in a series of federal cases construing 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, which is the federal counterpart of CrRP 1.850…
-
Al Featherston v. State, 301 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…summary denial of the motion by the trial judge constituted an abuse of discretion. We disagree with the defendant’s contention and affirm upon the authority of e. g., Austin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So. 2d 730; Conyers v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 616; Nelson v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So. 2d 533; Peterson v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 237 So. 2d 223; Parks v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 256 So. 2d 40.…
-
Brown v. State, 404 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…that perjured testimony was used with substantiating documentary evidence or affidavits, as required. Fuller v. Wainwright, 238 So. 2d 65 (Fla.1970); Stringer v. State, 246 So. 2d [136] 137 (Fourth District Court of Appeal, 1971); Conyers v. State, 215 So. 2d 616 (Third District Court of Appeal, 1968). (6) Defendant does not allege, nor do the record and files show, any actual prejudice to the Defendant other than his conviction and sentence. Defendant’s motion does not allege, nor do the records and files…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Bruce Hinson Gammage and Larry v. Gysin, 162 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Bogan v. State, 211 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Sellers v. State, 212 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)