Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

66 So. 2d 277

Pynes v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 23, 1953

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1953-06-23

Relies on 53 So. 2d 708 - Ex Parte Welles

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1953-06-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1999

4 state decisions

1019531960197019801990decided

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 →

SEBRING, Justice.

¶1This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Jackson County, Florida, denying the appellant’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis which contained the following material recitals:

¶2On November 6, 1950, Pynes, the appellant, was informed against for committing an assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. On November 28, 1950, he was tried and convicted of the offense charged and sentenced therefor to a term of twenty years at hard labor in the Florida State Prison. During the course of the trial, one B. L. Solomon, an attorney who had been privately retained to aid the State Attorney in the prosecution of the cause, entered the jury room where the members of the jury were congregated during a temporary recess of the court. The petitioner was not made aware of this fact until approximately November 1, 1951, and hence did not have the opportunity during the course of the trial to move the trial court for a mistrial.

¶3The prayer of the petition was that the trial court grant unto the petitioner a writ of error coram nobis and make the same returnable in accordance with law; that the sentence and judgment entered against the petitioner be recalled, revoked and annulled; and that the petitioner be granted a new trial upon the original information.

¶4We find no error in the judgment appealed from.

¶5It affirmatively appears from the record that the petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced on November 28, 1950. He gained knowledge of the alleged misconduct of the private attorney on or about November 1, 1951. His petition for the writ of error coram nobis was not filed in the court below until September 22, 1952.

¶6The rule is that a writ of error coram. nobis must be applied for within 90 days after the judgment is entered in the proceeding to which the writ is directed, unless good cause is shown for delaying the application beyond that period. Ex parte Wells, Fla., 53 So.2d 708. The petitioner made no attempt to show why he delayed filing his application in the trial court until almost eleven months after he gained knowledge of the facts upon which he bases his petition, and approximately twenty-two months after the entry of the judgment and sentence in the cause.

¶7The conclusion reached on this point makes it unnecessary for us to consider whether upon the facts shown by the petition the trial court would have been justified in granting the writ had the petition been filed in time.

¶8The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

¶9It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
/66/so2d/277 · .json · Public domain