Jolly v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jolly v. State

571 So. 2d 7, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3512, 1990 WL 66216

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 1990

DocketNo. 90-00605

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 571 So. 2d 7 (Jolly 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

Jolly v. State, 571 So. 2d 7, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3512, 1990 WL 66216 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Horace Jolly petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that his 1974 conviction and life sentence for first degree murder were brought about by the state’s “knowing use of perjured testimony,” of which Jolly heretofore was unaware.

The petition is fatally defective in at least two respects. First, Jolly does not [8]*8specify the content of this allegedly perjurious testimony, let alone demonstrate its likely effect upon the outcome of his case. Second, had Jolly in fact discovered new evidence of material significance, this claim should have been presented to the trial court using the procedures outlined in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Richardson v. State, 546 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1989). Habeas corpus is not an appropriate substitute. State v. Broom, 523 So.2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Petition denied.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Horace Jolly petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that his 1974 conviction and life sentence for first degree murder were brought about by the state’s “knowing use of perjured testimony,” of which Jolly heretofore was unaware.

The petition is fatally defective in at least two respects. First, Jolly does not [8]*8specify the content of this allegedly perjurious testimony, let alone demonstrate its likely effect upon the outcome of his case. Second, had Jolly in fact discovered new evidence of material significance, this claim should have been presented to the trial court using the procedures outlined in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Richardson v. State, 546 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1989). Habeas corpus is not an appropriate substitute. State v. Broom, 523 So.2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Petition denied.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 So. 2d 7, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3512, 1990 WL 66216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jolly-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack