Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

163 So. 2d 335

Docket Nos. 63-818, 63-919.

Brown v. State

Gerald "Pops" BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 28, 1964.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1964-04-28

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1971

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Pursuant to the mandate of the Appellate Court this cause is again before this Court on the said motion to vacate judgment and sentence, and the Court having heard testimony offered by the defendant in support of his motion, and having heard extensive argument of counsel, it is the finding of this Court that the defendant Gerald 'Pops’ Brown has failed to produce any proof of the alleged itse at his trial of perjured testimony while same was known by the State to be such, and therefore, it is, “ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the said motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 he and is hereby denied.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Brown v. State

Relies on 160 So. 2d 730 - Austin v. State · Smith v. United States · Gammage v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1964-04-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*336 Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and W. Eugene Neill, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2James W. Kynes, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Victor V. Andreevsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CARROLL and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.

¶4BARKDULL, Chief Judge.

¶5The above-numbered appeals both question the correctness of the trial court's order in denying a petition seeking relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.

¶6The appellant, as petitioner, filed a lengthy petition containing many grounds, all of which we find to be without merit save and except the allegation that at the time of his trial certain of the testimony adduced was perjured and that the State was aware, at the time, that the testimony given was of that character.

¶7The trial judge denied the petition without a formal hearing, and we reverse and remand to the trial court to consider the petition further, on the sole ground of the alleged use of perjured testimony while same was known by the State to be such, in accordance with the views expressed in the following: Austin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So.2d 730; Gammage v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 529, (opinion filed March 17, 1964); Smith v. United States, 9th Cir.1958, 259 F.2d 125.

¶8Reversed and remanded with directions.

/163/so2d/335 · .json · Public domain