Montgomery v. State
Opinion
Montgomery appeals from a denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, after the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. He claimed newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial because Anton Gardner, his nephew and a state witness, had recanted the testimony he gave at trial. We affirm.
The standard for reviewing recantation of testimony as grounds for a new trial is to deny relief unless the trial court is satisfied the recantation testimony is true. State v. Spaziano, 692 So.2d 174, 177 (Fla. 1997); Armstrong v. State, 642 So.2d 730, 735 (Fla.1994). In this case it was alleged 1 that the trial court heard testimony from three witnesses who allegedly pressured Gardner to perjure himself or who knew about his perjury. They contradicted Gardner’s testimony. In addition, the trial court allegedly reviewed a letter written by Gardner to Raul Zambrano which was inconsistent with his recantation testimony. The trial court obviously found any recantation testimony by Gardner not to be credible and found that there was ample competent evidence to support his conclusion. Montgomery has failed to show an abuse of discretion. Spaziano; Jent v. State, 408 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1981); Stone v. State, 616 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
We also find Montgomery’s other claims to be without merit.2
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
826 So. 2d 531 (Montgomery v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.