CHARLES BRIGHT, JR., 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.
Charles Bright, Jr. appealed the denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.850, CrPR. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirmed the denial, holding that Bright failed to state legally sufficient grounds for relief under Rule 3.850.
The trial court did not err in denying Bright's Rule 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Bright failed to state legally sufficient grounds for relief because he did not allege that the state knowingly used perjured testimony, failed to show that witness testimony was unworthy of belief, and made only a bald assertion of counsel incompetence without proper support.
[1] A court will not consider issues that were previously raised and decided in a prior appeal.
[2] A claim that a conviction was based on perjured testimony is insufficient without alleging that the state knowingly used the perjured testimony.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When it patently appears from a reading of appellant's motion that it is entirely deficient because no grounds for relief under Rule 3.850 CrPR are stated, the appellant is not entitled to a hearing on his motion and the trial court is eminently correct in denying the motion without a hearing.”
Establishes the standard that a Rule 3.850 motion lacking legally sufficient grounds may be denied without an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBright was convicted and sought an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 motion. He alleged his conviction was based on perjured testimony, that a witne…
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
Charles Bright, Jr. appeals from the denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3,850, CrPR, 33 L.S.A.
The public defender filed a motion to withdraw from this appeal. We withheld ruling on the motion; advised appellant and allowed him 30 days to file a statement of points. He filed instead a petition for writ of habeas corpus which we elect to treat as a statement of points in his pending appeal.
In this appeal, appellant attempts to argue points raised in the original appeal from his judgment and conviction. Bright v. State, Fla.App.1971, 250 So.2d 10.
We will not consider those points which were raised and decided in the original appeal. Carter v. State, Fla.App.1970, 242 So.2d 737 and Mears v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 212.
Appellant’s allegation that his conviction was based on perjured testimony is insufficient and fails because of the failure to allege that the state knowingly used perjured testimony. See Bogan v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 74 and Conyers v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 616.
The alleged inconsistent testimony of a witness is also insufficient for reversal unless the testimony is such as to be unworthy of belief. Rowe v. State, Fla.1924, 87 Fla. 17, 98 So. 613. Such was not the case here.
Appellant’s bald assertion of incompetency of counsel is rejected. See Holmes v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 876 and Humphries v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 23.
*613When it patently appears from a reading of appellant’s motion that it is entirely deficient because no grounds for relief under Rule 3.850 CrPR are stated, the appellant is not entitled to a hearing on his motion and the trial court is eminently correct in denying the motion without a hearing. Jones v. State, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 379. Appellant has not stated any legally sufficient grounds in this motion and error was not committed in denying an evi-dentiary hearing. See State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892, on remand 168 So.2d 587; Henderson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 73; Harper v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 325; and Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 224.
The public defender’s motion to withdraw is granted and the final order herein appealed is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evans v. State, 258 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…78, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1966); and Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). We hold that appellant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 3.850 CrPR motion. Bright v. State, Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 612, 3 D.C.A., opinion filed February 8, 1972; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1970, 234 So. 2d 379; and Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 85. We conclude that the appeal demonstrates no reversible error and that it is without merit. The public defend…
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Rowe v. State, 87 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1924)
- Harper v. State, 168 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Bogan v. State, 211 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Carter v. State, 242 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Henderson v. State, 174 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Rayburn v. State, 203 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Conyers v. State, 215 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Humphries v. State, 232 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)