Sawyer v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial in 1983, Appellant was found guilty of three counts of rape and three counts of burglary. In 2014, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, alleging (1) his identity as the perpetrator of the rape was in question and no DNA evidence was introduced at trial, and (2) his signed confessions were not signed by him or, even if they were, they were signed under “undue duress.” The trial court denied the petition, finding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness and failed establish that the requested testing would produce new evidence that would support the theory of defense presented at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where Appellant failed to state any basis to rebut the presumption against timeliness, the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition was not clearly erroneous.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.