From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dutchville v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 24, 1968
209 So. 2d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

Opinion

No. 67-298.

April 24, 1968.

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough County, Carl C. Durrance, J.

Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Public Defender, and Richard C. Edwards, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.


Appellant seeks reversal of the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 (now Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A.). His motion alleged that the State knowingly used perjured testimony at his trial. Such allegation is not conclusively refuted by the record. Consequently, it was sufficient to have entitled appellant to an evidentiary hearing thereon. Rayburn v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So.2d 212, 213.

Accordingly, we reverse the appealed order and remand the cause with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the aforesaid allegation and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.

Reversed and remanded.

LILES, C.J., and ALLEN and HOBSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dutchville v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 24, 1968
209 So. 2d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
Case details for

Dutchville v. State

Case Details

Full title:EDDY DUTCHVILLE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Apr 24, 1968

Citations

209 So. 2d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

Citing Cases

Presley v. State

Consequently, it was sufficient to have entitled appellant to an evidentiary hearing thereon. Rayburn v.…