EARL YON
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 dismissed a writ of error because the record transcript was not verified. The court also found that the petition for the writ, which alleged conviction based on false testimony and ineffective assistance of counsel, stated no valid grounds for relief.
No, the petition did not state valid grounds for relief, and the appellate record was not verified. Therefore, the writ of error should be dismissed.
“The transcript of the record presented to this Court in the above stated case is not verified and, therefore, the cause should be dismissed.”
Establishes the primary procedural reason for dismissal.
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 sought a writ of error coram nobis, alleging he was convicted based on false testimony that a witness later admitted was untrue. He als…
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 False Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The transcript of the record presented to this Court in the above stated case is not verified and, therefore, the cause should be dismissed.
We have examined the transcript, however, and find that it purports to bring for review judgment in the Circuit Court in and for the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida, Gadsden County, denying petition for writ of error coram nobis.
We have examined the petition for the writ and find that it states no valid ground for the issuance of such writ. The allegations of the petitioner are, in short, that the petitioner was convicted on false testimony; that a witness who testified against him has since admitted that the testimony was false; that he can prove such testimony was false and that his attorney on the trial in which he was convicted failed to file motion for new trial and failed to have his case reviewed in the Supreme Court.
No ground is stated upon which writ of error coram nobis should issue. See Jones v. State, 130 Fla. 645, 178 Sou. 404; Skipper v. State, 127 Fla. 553, 173 Sou. 692; Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396, 107 Sou. 535; Lamb v. Harrison, 91 Fla. 927, 108 Sou. 671; Jennings v. Pope, 101 Fla. 1476, 136 Sou. 471; Pike v. State, 103 Fla. 594, 139 Sou. 196.
The questions attempted to be presented on writ of error are frivolous and without merit.
For the reasons stated, writ of error is dismissed.
*772Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 (Fla. 1926)
- Jennings v. Pope, 136 So. 471 (Fla. 1931)
- Lamb v. Harris, 91 Fla. 927 (Fla. 1926)
- Jones v. State, 130 Fla. 645 (Fla. 1938)
- Pike v. State, 103 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1931)
- Skipper v. State, 127 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1937)