State v. Peak

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Peak

406 So. 2d 477, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21207

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 29, 1981·No. No. 80-2489·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the record before us, we cannot conclude, as contended by appellant, that the court abused its discretion in determining that the recanting of testimony of a material witness who had testified while under the influence of four valium pills, allegedly with the knowledge of the prosecutor, created serious doubt as to the integrity of the trial and warranted the granting of an evi-dentiary hearing and new trial on the defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e. g., State v. Matera, 266 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On the record before us, we cannot conclude, as contended by appellant, that the court abused its discretion in determining that the recanting of testimony of a material witness who had testified while under the influence of four valium pills, allegedly with the knowledge of the prosecutor, created serious doubt as to the integrity of the trial and warranted the granting of an evi-dentiary hearing and new trial on the defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e. g., State v. Matera, 266 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972).

Affirmed.

State v. Peak, 406 So. 2d 477, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21207 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

406 So. 2d 477 (State v. Peak) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related