Henzel v. State, 77-2631
Decision Date | 04 November 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 77-2631,77-2631 |
Parties | Leo HENZEL, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Osman, and Robert M. Duboff, Miami, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Steven L. Bolotin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before HUBBART, C. J., and HENDRY and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
The central issue presented for review is whether a trial court's alleged failure to recall accurately certain testimony prior to rendering a verdict in a non-jury criminal trial constitutes a legally sufficient ground to set aside a subsequently entered criminal conviction and sentence on a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We hold that such an alleged failure to recall testimony cannot constitute a valid ground for coram nobis relief. We accordingly, deny the petitioner's original application filed in this court for permission to file a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the trial court.
The facts pertinent to the above issue are as follows. On March 8, 1965, the petitioner Leo Henzel was charged in seven informations with grand larceny by fraud (§ 811.021(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1965)) in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. The petitioner entered a plea of not guilty and waived trial by jury. The petitioner was subsequently tried non-jury at four separate hearings on five of the above informations which had previously been consolidated for a single trial. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found the petitioner not guilty on four of the above informations and guilty on one of the above informations. On January 20, 1967, the petitioner was sentenced to five years imprisonment by the trial court. On appeal, this court affirmed and subsequent certiorari review was denied. Henzel v. State, 212 So.2d 92 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 165 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 967, 89 S.Ct. 1303, 22 L.Ed.2d 570 (1969).
The petitioner has since been engaged in over ten years of post-conviction relief litigation. He filed (a) two petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal court, which petitions were either dismissed or denied, see Henzel v. State, 235 So.2d 358, 359 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); (b) a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under former Fla.R.Crim.P. 1.850 (now 3.850), which was denied by the trial court and affirmed on appeal, Henzel v. State, 235 So.2d 358 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); and (c) a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 which was denied by the trial court and no appeal was taken therefrom. During the course of this litigation, the petitioner completed his five year sentence previously imposed and was released from prison.
The petitioner thereupon filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the trial court, 1 contending that he was deprived of due process of law because there was no evidence in the record to support his conviction. The trial court, after a full hearing, entered a written order granting the petition, but later, upon the state's motion, subsequently vacated this order on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of error coram nobis because the petitioner had not first sought permission from this court to file the instant petition. On appeal from the latter order of vacation, this court affirmed and subsequent certiorari relief was denied. Henzel v. State, 365 So.2d 172 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 469 (Fla.1979).
On August 24, 1979, the petitioner filed in this court his first application for leave to file a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the trial court, relying entirely on the above trial court order, subsequently vacated, which had granted his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. As the application set forth no facts upon which the requested coram nobis relief could be granted, this court denied the application, but without prejudice to file a legally sufficient application as required by Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla.1979).
On June 11, 1980, the petitioner filed in this court a second application, which is now pending, for leave to file in the trial court a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. In this application, the petitioner asserts as his ground for coram nobis relief that the trial judge failed to recall accurately certain of the complainant's testimony at the trial due to the truncated nature of the trial which was held in four separate hearings over a period of several months. Specifically, it is urged that the trial court failed to recall the complainant's testimony that the loans involved in all five informations herein arose from a single business transaction with the petitioner. It is further urged, in effect, that had the complainant's testimony been accurately recalled, the trial court would have had no choice but to acquit the petitioner on all five informations, instead of only four. The evidentiary proffer made in support of this ground centers entirely on certain statements made by the trial court on the record that it was finding the petitioner guilty on one of the informations and later that this was the one where there was no promissory note. Petitioner claims that the complainant's trial testimony is at variance with the trial court's conclusion here.
The state has filed a detailed response to the above application and a full argument has been heard in this cause. We must determine whether this application states a sufficient basis to allow the petitioner to file a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. We conclude that it does not.
The latest and most definitive statement by the Florida Supreme Court on the law relating to a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla.1979). In that case, the Court held that a defendant in a criminal case who seeks to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence in the trial court on a petition for a writ of error coram nobis must first obtain permission to do so from the appellate court which originally affirmed his conviction. 2 The Court, speaking through Mr Justice Alderman, comprehensively summarizes the established requirements which an application for permission to seek coram nobis relief must meet when filed in the appropriate appellate court:
It is clear that the petitioner's application fails to satisfy the requirements for coram nobis relief as stated in the Hallman decision. 3 As such, the petitioner's application must be denied.
First, the application asserts no new facts which were unknown to the trial court, the petitioner or petitioner's counsel at the time of the original trial. Indeed, all the facts the petitioner relies upon were revealed at the original trial and nothing new has since come to light. The assertion that the trial court may have failed to recall accurately certain of these facts at the time it rendered its verdict at trial, even if true, cannot, under any view,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bradbury v. Wainwright, 82-5693
... ... attempt to denigrate Rule 33-3.13 as an administrative regulation unauthorized by the Florida state legislature. Bradbury claims that the Department of Corrections should not be able to prohibit the ... ...
-
Tafero v. State
...Fast v. State, 221 So.2d 203 (Fla.3d DCA 1969) was, in our view, overruled, sub silentio, by Hallman and Smith. See Henzel v. State, 390 So.2d 397, 399 n.2 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). The cases suggesting that newly discovered evidence was a basis for 3.850 relief were, for the most part, decided un......
-
Simmons v. State
...by the state are inapposite because they involve situations where the defendants had been released from custody. See Henzel v. State, 390 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1143 (Fla.1981); Wingard v. State, 210 So.2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA The state's second contention is also ......
-
State v. Morris, 88-1307
...id., or under supervision, at the time her motion was brought. State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 10 (Fla.1974); see also Henzel v. State, 390 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So.2d 1143 (Fla.1981). In the event any further application for relief is made below, we note Morris' pr......