Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Gammage v. State

Gammage v. State

162 So. 2d 529
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 17, 1964
Docket63-443
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 162 So. 2d 529 (Gammage v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gammage v. State, 162 So. 2d 529 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

162 So.2d 529 (1964)

Bruce Hinson GAMMAGE and Larry V. Gysin, Appellants,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 63-443.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 17, 1964.
Rehearing Denied April 21, 1964.

Law Offices of Henry R. Carr and William B. Seidel, Miami, for appellants.

James W. Kynes, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Leonard R. Mellon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, the appellants seek review of an adverse order denying the relief sought in the trial court, by petition filed under the authority of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.

The gist of the petition was that they had been convicted by perjured testimony of a witness, which was known by a police officer to be perjured at the time of such testimony. The petition did not allege that the State prosecuting officials were aware of the falsity of the alleged perjured testimony and, failing such allegation supported by sufficient documentary evidence *530 or affidavits to this effect, the petition was insufficient and the actions of the trial judge in denying relief under same was appropriate. See: Austin v. State, Fla. App. 1964, 160 So.2d 730, opinion filed February 14, 1964; Wild v. State of Oklahoma, 10th Cir.1951, 187 F.2d 409; Sears v. United States, 5th Cir.1959, 265 F.2d 301; Anno., 2 L.Ed.2d 1575, 1583 and cases cited therein.

This opinion does not attempt to rule on the question of the effect of perjury by a law enforcement official as to knowledge by imputation to prosecuting officials.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Matrascia v. State
384 So. 2d 908 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Stringer v. State
246 So. 2d 136 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Basehart v. State
235 So. 2d 324 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Conyers v. State
215 So. 2d 616 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Tillman v. State
214 So. 2d 728 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Bogan v. State
211 So. 2d 74 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Rayburn v. State
203 So. 2d 212 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Williams v. State
202 So. 2d 821 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
House v. State
199 So. 2d 134 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Baker v. State
188 So. 2d 583 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Demps v. State
184 So. 2d 227 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Buchanan v. State
184 So. 2d 225 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
DeVoe v. State
184 So. 2d 694 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Thomas v. State
172 So. 2d 245 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Harris v. State
167 So. 2d 312 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Mathis v. State
166 So. 2d 814 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Brown v. State
163 So. 2d 335 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Byers v. State
163 So. 2d 57 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 So. 2d 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gammage-v-state-fladistctapp-1964.