MICHAEL C. JONES
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that false testimony by a witness, even if induced by prosecutorial misconduct, is not a sufficient ground for the writ if the issue was or could have been litigated at trial.
No, a writ of error coram nobis cannot be granted on the grounds of false testimony by a witness regarding a material issue, nor can newly discovered evidence going to the merits of the issue tried be used as a basis for the writ.
“The remedy cannot be invoked on the ground that an important witness testified falsely about a 'material issue in the case, nor can newly discovered evidence, going to the merits of the issue tried be used as a basis for the writ.”
This quote establishes the court's precedent regarding the limitations of the writ of error coram nobis, specifically excluding false testimony and newly discovered evidence related to the merits of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael C. Jones, convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment, petitioned for a writ of error coram nobis. He alleged that the convi…
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 Perjured Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
It having been made to appear by sworn petition of Michael C. Jones for a"writ of error coram nobis that he was .convicted of the crime of armed robbery in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County and sentenced to the State Prison of Florida for the term of his natural life. That on writ of error to the judgment of conviction the same was affirmed by this Court and reported in 122 Fla. 307, 165 Sou. Rep. 33. The basis of the petition is the alleged perjured testimony of William B. Poling given at the trial of the petitioner, coupled with “duress, coercion, intimidation and threats” by the prosecuting officer to induce the witness Poling to testify falsely *646against petitioner. The affidavit of Annie Louis Burrows was filed in support of the petition. It is further alleged that material facts were in existence which were not adjudicated by the trial court.
In the case of Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396, text p. 405, 107 Sou. Rep. 535, this Court said: “The remedy cannot be invoked on the ground that an important witness testified falsely about a 'material issue in the case, nor can newly discovered evidence, going to the merits of the issue tried be used as a basis for the writ.” See Washington v. State, 95 Fla. 289, 116 Sou. Rep. 470; Reed v. State, 94 Fla. 32, 113 Sou. Rep. 630, Skipper v. State (Fla.) 173 So. 692.
The petition fails to show sufficient facts authorizing the order sought. The petition is denied.
Ellis, C. J..,.and Wi-iitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs specially.
(concurring specially).—I think the petition and accompanying affidavits might make out a good prima facie showing for leave to apply to trial court for writ of error coram nobis under the principles laid down by this court in Skipper v. State, 124 Fla. 384, 169 So. 58, 64, and in Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 55 S. C. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791, if it were not for the fact that there was other evidence in the case sufficient to have supported the judgment of conviction, such as the sworn confession of the defendant, petitioner here, referred to in the opinion of this Court affirming the judgment of conviction, which is cited in the above opinion by Mr. Justice Chapman.
Chapman, J., concurs.
Brown, J.
(concurring specially).—I think the petition and accompanying affidavits might make out a good prima facie showing for leave to apply to trial court for writ of error coram nobis under the principles laid down by this court in Skipper v. State, 124 Fla. 384, 169 So. 58, 64, and in Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 55 S. C. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791, if it were not for the fact that there was other evidence in the case sufficient to have supported the judgment of conviction, such as the sworn confession of the defendant, petitioner here, referred to in the opinion of this Court affirming the judgment of conviction, which is cited in the above opinion by Mr. Justice Chapman.
Chapman, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Welles, 53 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1951)…he doctrine of coram nobis was explored in Nickels v. State, 86 Fla. 208, 98 So. 497, 502, 99 So. 121 and Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396, 107 So. 535. Limitations on the doctrine were defined in House v. State, 130 Fla. 400, 177 So. 705; Johns v. State, 130 Fla. 645, 178 So. 404; Thompson v. State, 154 Fla. 769, 18 So. 2d 788; Skipper v. Schumaker, 124 Fla. 384, 169 So. 58, 68 and Washington v. State, 95 Fla. 289, 116 So. 470 and in other cases. The writ of error coram nobis sometimes called coram vobis (coram…
-
Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co., 147 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1941)…So. 26; Leavitt v. State, 116 Fla. 738, 156 So. 704; Jarvis v. Chapman, 118 Fla. 577, 159 S. 282; Skipper v. Shoemaker, 118 Fla. 867, 160 So. 357; Skipper v. State, 128 Fla. 362, 174 So. 863; Lee v. State, 129 Fla. 857, 176 So. 764; Jones v. State, 130 Fla. 645, 178 So. 404; McCall v. State, 136 Fla. 349, 186 So. 803; Johnson v. State, 144 Fla. 87, 197 So. 720. It is settled law that the question of granting a writ of error coram nobis is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court and his judgment w…
-
Snell v. State, 158 Fla. 431 (Fla. 1947)…Tillis, had taken place, and, even if there was allegation that Tillis had testified falsely at the instigation of the State Attorney, that would still fall short of justifying the issuance of a writ of error coram.nobis. See Jones v. State, supra, 130 Fla. 645, 178 So. 404. The affidavit of Frank Shearer and Fannie Shearer to the effect that Nathan Tillis and Jesse Grice were intoxicated at such time as was stated in the affidavit could have had no bearing upon nor would the same have been sufficient to…1 / 2
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
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1935)
- Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 (Fla. 1926)
- Skipper v. Doyle Schumacher, 124 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1936)
- Davenport v. State, 94 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1927)
- Abe Washington v. State, 95 Fla. 289 (Fla. 1928)
- Skipper v. State, 127 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1937)
- Jones v. State, 122 Fla. 307 (Fla. 1935)