FRANKLIN PIERCE MCCALL
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 convicted petitioner's request for leave to apply for a writ of error coram nobis, finding the petition lacked supporting affidavits and its allegations were contradicted by the record and testimony, and that the petition was filed too late.
No, the Court held that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause and probability of truth to warrant leave to apply for the writ.
“Even in the court of. original jurisdiction the process is not a writ of right but is one granted only on a showing of cause, and then it is in the court's discretion whether, on the affidavits presented, to allow the writ or not.”
Establishes that the writ of error coram nobis is not automatic and requires a showing of cause and judicial discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner, who had been convicted of a crime, sought leave to apply for a writ of error coram nobis. The petition was not supported by any affida…
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 Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
— This cause is before us on petition for leave to apply to the Court below for writ of error coram nobis.
Even in the court of. original jurisdiction the process is not a writ of right but is one granted only on a showing of cause, and then it is in the court’s discretion whether, on the affidavits presented, to allow the writ or not. See 34 C. J. 399, Sec. 622, Washington v. State, 92 Fla. 740, 110 So. 259.
Here the petitioner presents no supporting affidavits, buc only his own verified petition. Such pertinent allegations as are contained in the petition are positively and directly contradicted by the testimony given by the defendant in the court below and by other witnesses.
In the petition now before us the convicted petitioner for the first time in the record denies his guilt of the offense charged. The record of his own testimony and of corroborating physical circumstances show beyond any question of reasonable doubt that he did commit the crime of which he stands convicted and that his present belated denial of guilt is false and untrue.
In the exercise of its discretion in matters of this sort the court should look to the reasonableness, of the allegations of the petition and t© the existence of the probability of the tiuth thereof. This duty we have met and we are convinced that to grant the petition would be no less than a trifling with justice-.
Aside from this the petition comes too late under the facts in this case. See Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396, 107 So. 535.
The petition is denied.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman, and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deauville Realty Co., Inc. v. Tobin, 120 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…he appellate court to grant or deny leave to so apply in the trial court (Nickels v. State, 86 Fla. 208, 98 So. 497, 502, 99 So. 121; Lamb v. State, supra, 91 Fla. 396, 107 So. 535; Williams v. Yelvington, 103 Fla. 145, 137 So. 156; McCall v. State, 136 Fla. 349, 186 So. 803) shall not be exercised to grant leave when the appellate court determines that the petition fails to show grounds constituting, prima facie, a basis for issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. See Chambers v. State, supra, 117 Fla. 64…
-
la Rocca v. State, 151 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…were voluntary were false and the result of duress. If another remedy exists, a writ of error coram nobis will not be granted. 7 Fla. Law and Practice, Criminal Law, § 6S2; Washington v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 289, 116 So. 470; McCall v. State, 1939, 136 Fla. 349, 186 So. 803; Nickels v. State, 1924, 86 Fla. 208, 98 So. 497, 99 So. 121; House v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 145, 172 So. 734; Chambers v. State, 1933, 113 Fla. 786, 152 So. 437; and Lamb v. State, 1926, 91 Fla. 396, 107 So. 535. The State contends th…
-
Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co., 147 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1941)…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 will not be reversed by this Court unless the…
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
- Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 (Fla. 1926)
- Abe Washington v. State, 92 Fla. 740 (Fla. 1926)