Bethune v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bethune v. State

492 So. 2d 404, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1292, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8186

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 4, 1986·No. No. 86-864·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, he contends that he was improperly convicted of two counts of perjury arising out of one episode of testifying at trial. Even if this could be reached by a motion for post-conviction relief, appellant’s position could not be sustained because he told two “separate and distinct lies” and the “proof of each falsehood required the establishment of different facts.” United States v. Nixon, 634 F.2d 306, 313 (5th Cir.1981). See also Gebhard v. United States, 422 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1970); Commonwealth v. Gurney, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 391, 433 N.E.2d 471 (1982).

Affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, he contends that he was improperly convicted of two counts of perjury arising out of one episode of testifying at trial. Even if this could be reached by a motion for post-conviction relief, appellant’s position could not be sustained because he told two “separate and distinct lies” and the “proof of each falsehood required the establishment of different facts.” United States v. Nixon, 634 F.2d 306, 313 (5th Cir.1981). See also Gebhard v. United States, 422 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1970); Commonwealth v. Gurney, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 391, 433 N.E.2d 471 (1982).

Affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Bethune v. State, 492 So. 2d 404, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1292, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8186 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

492 So. 2d 404 (Bethune v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related