JAMES ROBINSON, 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 recantation by a state witness does not automatically entitle a defendant to a new trial, but requires an evidentiary hearing if the recantation is not inherently incredible and the trial testimony was not obviously immaterial.
Appellant appealed the denial of his postconviction motion, which included a claim of newly discovered evidence based on a state witness's recantation…
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 Witness Recantation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Robinson appeals the denial of his postconviction motion in which he raised several claims. We affirm the denial of relief on all grounds alleged, except for his claim of newly discovered evidence based on state’s witness Christopher Sli-wa’s recantation of his trial testimony.
Robinson’s motion attached an affidavit from Sliwa in which Sliwa stated that he had testified falsely at trial in order to obtain favorable treatment in his own criminal case. Recantation by a state witness does not necessarily entitle a defendant to a new trial. Florida law treats recantations with suspicion, and requires a new trial only if the court is satisfied that the recantation is true and that “the witness’s testimony will change to such an extent as to render probable a different verdict.” Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730, 735 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1085, 115 S.Ct. 1799, 131 L.Ed.2d 726 (1995).
An evidentiary hearing is usually required to make that determination. See e.g., Hilbert v. State, 666 So. 2d 1059, 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Venuto v. State, 615 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In this ease, the trial court denied relief after reviewing the entire trial record and Sli-wa’s affidavit, but without hearing any evidence. After conducting the same review, we cannot conclude that Sliwa’s affidavit was inherently incredible or that his trial testimony was obviously immaterial to the verdict, so as to allow the trial court to reject his recantation without holding an evidentiary hearing.
We therefore reverse the summary denial of Robinson’s motion in part, and remand with direction to hold an evidentiary hearing on this allegation only.
DELL, WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)…ARIENTE, J. We have for review McLin v. State, 781 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), an opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal that expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the First District Court of Appeal in Murrah v. State, 773 So. 2d 622, 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and the Second District Court of Appeal in Lewis v. State, 725 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), on the issue of the appella…
-
Davis v. State, 26 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 2009)…I usually requires an evidentiary hearing to evaluate credibility unless the affidavit is inherently incredible or obviously immaterial to the verdict and sentence. See Stephens v. State, 829 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citing Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Venuto v. State, 615 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)). [*527] Facial Insufficiency The postconviction trial court denied the request for an evidentiary hearing for several reasons, the first being that the motion was fac…
-
Stephens v. State, 829 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…, 523 U.S. 1040, 118 S.Ct. 1350, 140 L.Ed.2d 499 (1998). These determinations require an evidentiary hearing in the context of recantations, unless the affidavit is inherently incredible or obviously immaterial to the verdict. See Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Venuto v. State, 615 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). This affidavit is neither. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we hereby REVERSE the trial court’s order and REMAND for an evidentiar…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lancelot Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1994)
- Venuto v. State, 615 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Hernandez v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1085 (U.S. 1995)
- Wright v. Virginia, 514 U.S. 1085 (U.S. 1995)
- Hilbert v. State, 666 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)