CLYDE HYSLER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Clyde Hysler sought a writ of error coram nobis to overturn his first-degree murder conviction, alleging that a key witness (James Baker) testified falsely and was mistreated. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that a coram nobis writ does not lie based on false testimony from witnesses, and that the record contained ample evidence supporting conviction independent of Baker's testimony.
A writ of error coram nobis will not lie to overturn a conviction based on false testimony of witnesses. The court held that coram nobis is available only for matters that would have prevented conviction, not matters that might merely have produced a different result, and that the petition failed to establish knowledge of misconduct by the prosecutor or trial court.
“Writ of error coram nobis will not lie because of false testimony given at the trial by important witness.”
Establishes the fundamental holding that false witness testimony is not a proper basis for coram nobis relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHysler was convicted of murder in the first degree after a trial at which witness James Baker testified. Hysler subsequently petitioned for a writ of …
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 Judicial Notice Of Court Records cases and more on FLexlaw
On motion for rehearing on application for *594an order for leave to apply to the Circuit Court of Duval County for writ of error coram nobis to review the judgment of conviction of petitioner of the offense of murder in the first degree heretofore entered in that court, on grounds stated in the petition, we have denied the petition for reasons as follows:
(a) This Court may take judicial cognizance of its own records and the record lodged in this Court on the writ of error to the judgment of conviction of the petitioner shows ample evidence to support the judgment of conviction without the aid of the testimony given on that trial by the witness James Baker.
(b) Writ of error coram nobis will not lie because of false testimony given at the trial by important witness. Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396, 107 Sou. 535.
(c) Matters properly presentable for writ of coram nobis are such as would have prevented conviction and not such as may have caused a different result. Chesser v. State, 92 Fla. 754, 109 Sou. 906.
(d) If witness Baker swore falsely at defendant’s trial, that fact was known to petitioner at the time of the trial. Washington v. State, 95 Fla. 289, 116 Sou. 470; Pike v. State, 103 Fla. 594, 139 Sou. 196.
(e) The allegations of the petition do not show that the prosecuting attorney had any guilty knowledge of the alleged maltreatment of the witness, or that the alleged falsity of the testimony of the witness Baker was known to the prosecuting officer.
(f) The petition does not show that any alleged maltreatment of witness was inflicted by any officer of the trial court or that same was known to any officer of the trial court.
(g) The records of this Court, of which we take *595judicial cognizance, show that petitioner was convicted on trial held subsequent to the trial and conviction of the witness Baker of the offense of murder in the first degree without recommendation to mercy, and that both trials were conducted on behalf of each defendant by able, diligent and faithful counsel.
(h) If all petitioner alleges in his petition had been true and had been fully made known to the trial court and to the jury which tried the defendant-petitioner, it would not have precluded the entry of the judgment upon a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree having been returned by the jury.
So it is, the petition is insufficient to require us to grant same and for such reasons the same was denied and the petition for rehearing is likewise denied.
So ordered.
Terrell, Thomas and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Brown, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. State, 154 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1944)…for its issuance are such as would- have precluded the entry of a judgment had they been available at the trial; not that such facts might have produced a different result had they been known to judge and jury. Lamb v. State, supra; Hysler v. State, 146 Fla. 593, 1 So. (2nd) 628; Sullivan v. State, (Fla.) 18 So. (2nd) 163. Assuming all that the petitioners have shown by their record here to be true, the facts shown therein would not necessarily have precluded the entry of the judgment of murder in the firs…
-
Sullivan v. State, 154 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1944)…e v. State, 127 Fla. 145, 172 So. 734; Chambers v. State, 136 Fla. 568, 187 So. 156, certiorari granted Chambers v. State of Florida, 308 U. S. 541, 60 S. Ct. 127, 84 L. Ed. 456, reversed 309 U. S. 227, 60 S. Ct. 472, 84 L. Ed. 716; Hysler v. State, 146 Fla. 593, 1 So. (2nd) 628, certiorari granted, 313 U. S. 557, 61 S. Ct. 1113, 85 L. Ed. 1518, affirmed 315 U.S. 411, 316 U.S. 642, 62 S. Ct. 688, 86 L. Ed. 932. The law is well settled that the writ is not available unless the error claimed would have precl…
-
James v. State, 152 Fla. 529 (Fla. 1943)…meet the rule which has been enunciated by this Court in Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396, 107 So. 535; Skipper v. Schumaker, 124 Fla. 384, 169 So. 58; Jones v. State, 130 Fla. 645, 178 So. 404; McCall v. State, 136 Fla. 349, 186 So. 803; Hysler v. State, 146 Fla. 593; 1 So. (2) 628', affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, 86 Law Ed. 832, 315 U.S. 411 to 436. The petition is denied. TERRELL, THOMAS, SEBRING and ADAMS, JJ., concur. BROWN and CHAPMAN, JJ., dissent.…
Previewing 3 of 6 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, 95 Fla. 289 (Fla. 1928)
- Chesser v. State, 92 Fla. 754 (Fla. 1926)
- Pike v. State, 103 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1931)