Hines v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hines v. State

289 So. 2d 48

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 25, 1974

DocketNo. 73-503

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 So. 2d 48 (Hines 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

Hines v. State, 289 So. 2d 48 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal from that judgment was affirmed.¹

Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A. The trial judge properly conducted an evidentiary hearing upon the allegations relating to whether perjured testimony occurred at appellant’s trial and whether the prosecution knowingly used that perjured testimony as a means of convicting the appellant. While the testimony on these issues was in conflict, there is more than enough evidence to support the judge’s holding against the appellant.

We have reviewed the other points raised by appellant and conclude that they are without merit. The order denying motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal from that judgment was affirmed.¹

Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A. The trial judge properly conducted an evidentiary hearing upon the allegations relating to whether perjured testimony occurred at appellant’s trial and whether the prosecution knowingly used that perjured testimony as a means of convicting the appellant. While the testimony on these issues was in conflict, there is more than enough evidence to support the judge’s holding against the appellant.

We have reviewed the other points raised by appellant and conclude that they are without merit. The order denying motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 So. 2d 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-state-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack