Pitts v. State
| Decision Date | 21 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 40618,40618 |
| Citation | 247 So.2d 53 |
| Parties | Freddie Lee PITTS and Wilbert Lee, Petitioners, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Irwin J. Block and Barry N. Semet, Miami, Maurice Rosen, North Miami Beach, and Phillip A. Hubbart, Miami, for petitioners.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
This cause is here on petition for writ of certiorari supported by certificate of the District Court of Appeal, First District, that its decision reported in State v. Pitts and Lee, 241 So.2d 399, is one which involves a question of great public interest. See Fla.Const., art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A.
We grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
By 'motion in confession of error,' the Attorney General has requested that the above cause be returned to the trial court for the purpose of a new trial. Under such circumstances, it is not necessary for this Court to pass upon the question certified to us.
The opinion of the District Court of Appeal is vacated without any determination on the questions of law discussed therein.
This cause is remanded to the District Court of Appeal for further remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence and the plea of guilty so that the Defendants may be rearraigned and the case set for trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Resnick v. State
... ... It is not new law, but rather one of the most honored and basic propositions of the system of justice that our Constitution and our court will not tolerate trials in which the prosecutors have tipped the scales of justice against the Defendant. E.g., State v. Pitts, 241 So.2d 399 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1970), cert. granted, 247 So.2d 53 (Fla.1971); Case returned for new trial on the Attorney General's confession of error in the suppression of evidence: ... Even in the absence of such a right the State Attorney, being an arm of the Court, and charged with the duty ... ...
-
Tafero v. State
...v. State, 287 So.2d 702 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); State v. Pitts, 241 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), vacated on other ground, Pitts v. State, 247 So.2d 53 (Fla.1971); Diamond v. State, 233 So.2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Fast v. State, 221 So.2d 203 (Fla.3d DCA 1969) was, in our view, overruled, su......
-
State v. Gomez
... ... State, 287 So.2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Fast v. State, 221 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). The Fourth District Court of Appeal takes the same view, Diamond v. State, 233 So.2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), as does apparently the First District Court of Appeal. See State v. Pitts, 241 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), vacated 247 So.2d 53 (Fla.1971). Implicit in such decisions, however, is that the newly discovered evidence must meet the above traditional coram nobis requirements for such ground. Accordingly, the trial court is not compelled to accept the ground absent a ... ...
-
Henzel v. State, 77-2631
... ... 3.850. State v. Gomez, 363 So.2d 624 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Walden v. State, 310 So.2d 426 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Kellerman v. State, 287 So.2d 702 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Fast v. State, 221 So.2d 203 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Diamond v. State, 233 So.2d 418 (Fla.4th DCA 1970). See also State v. Pitts, 241 So.2d 399 (Fla.1st DCA 1970), vacated, 247 So.2d 53 (Fla.1971). By implication, it would seem that on this point the above cases no longer represent good law. Newly discovered evidence pointing to the innocence of the accused may only be raised on a petition for a writ of error coram nobis ... ...