638 So. 2d 626
Docket No. 94-1120.
Lindel Ray DAVIDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided July 5, 1994.
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-07-05
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“the purported recantation testimony is neither sworn nor particularized.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including 943 So. 2d 946 - Moss v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1994-07-05
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2011
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1Lindel Ray Davidson, in pro. per.
¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
¶3Before HUBBART, BASKIN and COPE, JJ.
¶4PER CURIAM.
¶5As the purported recantation testimony is neither sworn nor particularized, and there is no showing how (if at all) the claimed recantation would have affected the trial, the trial court was entirely correct in denying the motion for postconviction relief as facially insufficient.
¶6Affirmed.