CHARLES W. NORRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Charles Norris appeals the denial of his postconviction motion for relief based on recanted testimony from the alleged victim in his sexual abuse conviction. The appellate court reversed, holding that a defendant raising recanted testimony does not need to allege state misconduct and may proceed under Rule 3.850 rather than the outdated writ of error coram nobis procedure.
A movant seeking relief based on recanted testimony is not required to allege misconduct by the state. Rule 3.850 is now the proper vehicle for such claims following the Richardson decision, which abolished the requirement to use the writ of error coram nobis for persons still in custody.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence of recanted testimony is not facially insufficient for failing to allege the state's willful relianc…
[2] Claims of recanted testimony that would warrant vacating a conviction were formerly required to be raised by a petition for writ of error coram nobis.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A movant seeking relief on the basis of recanted testimony is not, and has never been, required to allege misconduct on the part of the state.”
Establishes the core holding that state misconduct is not a prerequisite for relief based on recanted testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorris was convicted of sexual activity with a child under Florida Statutes § 794.041. After conviction, Norris discovered an affidavit purportedly ex…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Recantation Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charles Norris appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse.
Norris’s motion raises four separate issues; all but one are facially insufficient or should have been argued on direct appeal. The sole issue requiring further proceedings concerns Norris’s claim to have discovered new and material evidence which he believes will demonstrate his innocence. See Richardson v. State, 546 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1989). Norris was charged with and convicted of engaging in sexual activity with a child, a violation of section 794.041, Florida Statutes (1987). The new evidence is an affidavit purportedly executed by the victim, recanting her trial testimony and denying that she had been sexually abused by Norris.
The trial court found that since Norris had not accused the state of willful reliance upon perjured testimony, the motion was facially insufficient. State v. Matera, 266 So. 2d 661 (Fla.1972). This conclusion is incorrect. A movant seeking relief on the basis of recanted testimony is not, and has never been, required to allege misconduct on the part of the state. Matera and relat ed cases merely hold that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 heretofore has not been the proper vehicle for raising such claims. Instead, such persons formerly were required to utilize the more cumbersome petition for writ of error coram nobis. See, e.g., Rolle v. State, 451 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), affirmed, 475 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1985).
Richardson abolished this procedure for persons still in custody. In view of this procedural change the trial court erred when holding that, as a matter of law, Norris was foreclosed from relief. See also Linkous v. State, 585 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
After remand the trial court should address the merits of Norris’s claim that crucial trial testimony has been recanted. If the court finds the affidavit to be genuine, it should then determine whether the recantation is sufficiently reliable to warrant vacating Norris’s conviction for a new trial. Quite likely an evidentiary hearing will be necessary to accomplish this purpose. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.
Reversed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comfort v. State, 597 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…rit, also warrants comment. Comfort claims to have newly discovered evidence that at least one of his victims has recanted her trial testimony. Under certain circumstances this may constitute a valid basis for postconviction relief. Norris v. State, 586 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). However, in the present case we believe the circuit court was justified in rejecting the evidence submitted along with Comfort’s motion. Unlike Norris the victim’s “affidavit” is unsigned. Other witness affidavits, from persons w…
-
Herrick v. State, 590 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…Herrick should have raised this issue on direct appeal. We disagree. A claim of recanted testimony is similar in principle to “newly discovered evidence,” and as such can be brought via Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Norris v. State, 586 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We further find that Herrick’s allegations are sufficient on their face to allow relief. From the limited record now before us it appears that Brown’s testimony was crucial to the state’s case. Accordingly, we remand for furthe…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 546 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Matera, 266 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1972)
- Rolle v. State, 451 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Rolle v. State, 475 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1985)
- Linkous v. State, 585 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)