Scott v. State, 65060
| Citation | 464 So.2d 1171,10 Fla. L. Weekly 47 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 65060,65060 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 47 Paul William SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Paul Morris of Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Penny H. Brill, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Paul William Scott appeals the order of the trial court denying his motion for post-conviction relief without prejudice to his filing a sworn motion. We affirm.
Scott was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. We affirmed his conviction and sentence. Scott v. State, 411 So.2d 866 (Fla.1982). Subsequently, we denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus and petition for writ of error coram nobis. Scott v. Wainwright, 433 So.2d 974 (Fla.1983).
He recently filed a motion to vacate his judgment and sentence. His motion concluded with the following verification:
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Paul William Scott, who, being first duly sworn, says that he has personal knowledge of the allegations in the foregoing motion to vacate judgment and/or sentence and that the allegations and statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
The trial court held that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 requires that this motion shall be under oath and that the motion submitted by Scott was not under oath as contemplated by rule 3.850 because of the qualifying words "to the best of his knowledge." It stated that this rule of requiring that the motion under consideration be under oath is the only effective way to prevent the use of false allegations in motions for post-conviction relief.
The trial court correctly held that Scott's verification was not an oath as contemplated by rule 3.850 because of the qualifying language contained therein. Using this qualifying language, a defendant could file a motion for post-conviction relief based upon a false allegation of fact without fear of conviction for perjury. If the allegation proved to be false, the defendant would be able to simply respond that his verification of the false allegation had been "to the best of his knowledge" and that he did not know that the allegation was false. We require more than that. The defendant must be able to affirmatively say that his allegation is true and correct. The form adopted by this Court for the filing of motions for post-conviction relief contains the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...v. Jones, No. 4:14cv307-MW/CAS, 2016 WL 7015708, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2016) (not reported in F. Supp.) (quoting Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171, 1171 (Fla. 1985)), amended order accepting report and recommendation, 2016 WL 7033187 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2016). It is quite apparent that in ......
-
Gaither v. Sec'y
...factual allegations in the motion prove to be false." Stevens v. State, 947 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1985)). Under Florida law, a Rule 3.850 motion is not in compliance with the requirement that the motion be under oath where the mot......
-
Crain v. State
...contained in section 92.525 solved the concerns they expressed in Gorham v. State, 494 So.2d 211 (Fla.1986), and Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985). Concluding that the statutory declaration in the verification was sufficient to accomplish their purpose, they amended the Rule 3.987 F......
-
Martin v. State, 87-519
...Saxon v. State, 384 So.2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and it was not under oath. See Gorham v. State, 494 So.2d 211 (Fla.1986); Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985). However, as we see it, Martin's unsworn motion, signed by her trial counsel, was properly filed pursuant to Florida Rule of ......