Harris v. State

167 So. 2d 312
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 22, 1964·No. 63-675·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

167 So.2d 312 (1964)

Johnnie Lee HARRIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 63-675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

September 22, 1964.

Prebish & Gautier, Miami, for appellant.

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

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CARROLL and HORTON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of first degree murder. The jury recommended mercy and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. At the trial he was represented by able counsel. No appeal was taken during the period allowed. However, some eight months after the judgment the defendant prepared and filed a notice of appeal which, when treated by the trial court as a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, was summarily denied. The matter is before us on the defendant's appeal from the latter order.

We have considered the several grounds on which the judgment is attacked and find them to be without merit. The contention that the evidence was insufficient to warrant conviction was a matter to be presented on an appeal, and not by motion to vacate. Austin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So.2d 730. The contention that perjured testimony was given by a state's witness, without showing knowledge thereof by the prosecution, did not state a ground for relief under Rule 1. Austin v. State, supra; Gammage v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 529; Byers v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So.2d 57. The trial judge correctly rejected as insufficient the contention of suppression of certain evidence by the state, where it appeared that the defendant was represented at trial by counsel who knew or should have known of the evidence (said to have been presented on preliminary hearing) *313 and to have been in a position to have required its disclosure at trial. Federal Courts have so held in like circumstances. See Kyle v. United States, 2 Cir.1959, 266 F.2d 670; Goss v. United States, 6 Cir.1949, 179 F.2d 706.

Affirmed.

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

Harris v. State, 167 So. 2d 312 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

167 So. 2d 312 (Harris v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McNamara v. Hawks
354 F. Supp. 492 (S.D. Florida, 1973)
Barber v. State
257 So. 2d 581 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Cash v. State
207 So. 2d 18 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Estevez v. State
206 So. 2d 697 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Williams v. State
202 So. 2d 821 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Harris v. Wainwright
190 So. 2d 31 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Dean v. State
185 So. 2d 483 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Demps v. State
184 So. 2d 227 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Crusoe v. State
183 So. 2d 600 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Johnson v. State
177 So. 2d 23 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Barton v. State
176 So. 2d 605 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)