WILLIAM A. WALKER, 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.
A prisoner appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion, claiming the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness issue. The court held that where a movant alleges facts were unknown and undiscoverable through due diligence, an evidentiary hearing on timeliness is required before summary denial.
The trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the facts upon which the motion relies were unknown to the appellant and could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence under the Steinhorst standard.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief alleging facts unknown to the movant or their attorney, which could not have been discovered by due diligence, requires an evidentiary…
[2] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if the facts supporting a postconviction relief motion were unknown and undiscoverable through due diligenc…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the appellant alleges that the facts on which it is based were unknown to him or his attorney and could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence”
Establishes the legal standard for overcoming the timeliness bar in postconviction relief motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker was convicted in 1990. At trial, a sheriff's deputy testified that Walker discarded or sent home boxer shorts he was wearing when arrested. Aft…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by a prisoner from the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief pursuant to Rule 3.850. The state claims that it is filed untimely, more than two years from his conviction, but the appellant alleges that the facts on which it is based were unknown to him or his attorney and could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence. Steinhorst v. State, 636 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1994). In all other respects the motion appears legally sufficient and would have required either the holding of an evidentiary hearing on its merits or the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting its allegations. We hold that the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the timeliness of the motion.
The record tends to support appellant’s contention. He claims that the St. Lucie County jail withheld from him a pair of boxer shorts which he was wearing when arrested and which would provide key evidence in his case. At appellant’s trial in 1990 a sheriffs deputy claimed the appellant discarded them or sent them home with a relative. After his conviction, the appellant began requesting his property and records from the jail. There are several letters to the Sheriff of St. Lucie County from the appellant requesting his property and the property sheet compiled by the jail. These requests went unanswered until June of 1994 when he received the property sheet showing that the jail had in fact had possession of the shorts throughout his trial.
We think that based on the showing made by appellant, the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the facts upon which appellant relies in his motion were not known to him and could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence. Stein-horst.
We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. If the trial court determines that the standard of Steinhorst is met, then the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the merits of the motion or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting its allegations.
STONE, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grantley v. Clerk of the Cir. Court, 299 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…s decision, we withhold the formal issuance of the writ. Petition granted. 1 Upon this record, it is within the domain of the trial court in the first instance to determine the timeliness of any individual submission. See, e.g., Walker v. State, 661 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). However, petitioner’s substantive rights should not be inadvertently thwarted by the actions of respondent. See Ramsey v. State, 965 So. 2d 854, 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).…
Authorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 636 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1994)