Matera v. State
| Decision Date | 02 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | 71-28 and 71-593,Nos. 71-12,s. 71-12 |
| Citation | 254 So.2d 843 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | John MATERA and Gennaro Galtieri, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Milton E. Grusmark, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Ginsberg, Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
These appeals are from orders denying appellants' motion for relief pursuant to CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. Each appellant appeals from the same order and Galtieri appeals from a denial of a supplemental motion. The appellants were tried together and the appeals advance the same grounds for relief. They have been consolidated for all appellate purposes.
The appellants were found guilty after a jury trial of robbery. Galtieri was sentenced to prison for twenty-five years and Matera was sentenced to prison for life. Appeals were brought by both appellants and the judgments and sentences were affirmed. 1
Thereafter a motion for relief pursuant to CrPR 1.850 was brought on behalf of both appellants seeking relief upon several grounds. This motion was with the court's permission amended and supplemented. The trial judge entered an order for evidentiary hearing. Later upon a review of the entire record, after the filing of a supplemental affidavit, the trial judge entered the order appealed which rescinded the order for evidentiary hearing and denied the motion as supplemented without evidentiary hearing.
Our review of the record convinces us that there is only one ground in the motion and amended motions which is not either refuted by the record or foreclosed by the appeal from the judgment. The appellants allege that at their trial the state used the testimony of one Bruce Braverman, and that during the trial it was revealed that Braverman had, on more than one occasion, testified before a New York State Grand Jury. It was further alleged that the state knew of grand jury testimony which would have impeached the testimony of Braverman at the trial.
A withholding by the state of knowledge of evidence known to be useful to the defendant, even though useful only for impeachment purposes, can be grounds for a new trial. See Pitts v. State, Fla.1971, 247 So.2d 53; State v. Pitts Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 47. In the latter opinion the appellate court held:
'Recognizing that the suppressed statement did not directly relate to the defendant Freddie Pitts, the argumentation contained in the Attorney General's memorandum brief before the Supreme Court contends that he too was denied due process of law by virtue of the suppression of the subject statement inasmuch as the defense counsel, had he known that the State's chief witness, Willie Mae Lee, had earlier made a prior inconsistent statement as to the complicity of Smith rather than Lee, might have chosen to 'go to trial and submit Willie Mae Lee's credibility to the jury in light of her prior inconsistent statement.' * * * We have never known a case wherein an appellate court has held that matters going to the credibility of a witness are cognizable in a habeas or other post-conviction proceeding following a guilty plea, yet such is the argument successfully urged by the Attorney General in behalf of these defendants.
'We know of no basis upon which the benefit of such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galtieri v. Wainwright
...court of appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the motions and remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing. Matera v. State, 254 So.2d 843 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1971). That opinion, however, was subsequently quashed by the Florida Supreme Court. State v. Matera, 266 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972).......
-
State v. Matera
...prior efforts to be relieved from his conviction, we refer them to Matera v. State, 218 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Matera v. State, 254 So.2d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. Matera, 266 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972); State ex rel. Matera v. Wainwright, 277 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Matera v.......
-
Galtieri v. Wainwright
...set a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. 1 See State v. Matera, 266 So.2d 661 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1972), rev'g 254 So.2d 843 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1971); Matera v. State, 218 So.2d 180 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 225 So.2d 529 (Fla.Sup.Ct.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 955, 90 S.C......
-
State v. Matera
...cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 254 So.2d 843, a decision certified as passing on a question of great public interest, 'Whether the credibility of a witness may be attacked collaterally......