JOSEPH LAMAR, 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.
Joseph Lamar appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging newly discovered evidence—a witness affidavit identifying a third party as the actual murderer. The appellate court reverses and remands, finding Lamar made a facially sufficient claim that the evidence would probably result in a different verdict.
The court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing, holding that Lamar has made a facially sufficient claim that the newly discovered evidence would probably result in a different verdict and that the trial court erred in characterizing direct evidence of another's guilt as impeachment evidence.
[1] Newly discovered evidence of a third party's guilt in a murder for which a defendant was convicted constitutes direct evidence, not merely impeachment evidence.
[2] A defendant's claim of newly discovered evidence, which identifies another person as the perpetrator of the crime, is facially sufficient when the trial court has not con…
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“We first note that the evidence alleged by Lamar is direct evidence that someone else committed the crime for which he has been convicted and not impeachment evidence as suggested by the trial court.”
Establishes that the appellate court rejected the trial court's characterization of the newly discovered evidence as merely impeachment evidence rather than direct evidence of another's guilt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLamar was convicted of second-degree murder in 1993 and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 1995…
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 Direct Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*501] PER CURIAM.
Joseph Lamar appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Lamar was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-five years’ prison in 1993. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 1995. See Lamar v. State, 656 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). He filed the instant motion in 1999, alleging newly discovered evidence. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Lamar alleges as newly discovered evidence the sworn affidavit of a person who states that he witnessed the shooting for which Lamar was convicted and who identifies a named third party as the actual perpetrator. The trial court denied the motion stating that the evidence was impeachment evidence which was cumulative of the impeachment evidence presented at trial. We first note that the evidence alleged by Lamar is direct evidence that someone else committed the crime for which he has been convicted and not impeachment evidence as suggested by the trial court. We next note that the trial court’s conclusion that the only eyewitnesses to the crime were “substantially impeached” at trial weighs in favor of granting relief rather than denying relief. This is particularly true in a case such as this where there was apparently no other evidence linking Lamar to the crime.
We conclude that Lamar has made a facially sufficient claim that the newly discovered evidence would probably result in a different verdict on retrial, see Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla.1998), which the trial court has not conclusively refuted. We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. On remand the trial court should first consider whether the evidence in this ease qualifies as newly discovered evidence1 and then evaluate it based on the factors suggested by the supreme court in Jones.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur. . To qualify as newly discovered evidence, the evidence must have been unknown by the trial court, the defendant, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or his counsel could not have known of it by use of due diligence. See Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998). The trial court did not address this issue in its order. Although we believe that Lamar has made a facially sufficient claim that the evidence is newly discovered, it is possible that this could be refuted at an evidentiary hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simpson v. State, 100 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ory affidavit as inherently incredible merely due to contradictory trial testimony improper basis for summary denial of post-conviction claim, as this requires credibility determinations that only an evidentiary hearing can resolve); Lamar v. State, 768 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing summary denial where the witnesses inculpating defendant had been “substantially impeached” at trial). We would agree that this affidavit produced by a fellow prisoner nearly fifteen years after the event is inher…
-
Harold v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…ate, 310 So. 3d 542, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“[T]he mere fact that an affidavit is contradicted by trial testimony is also not necessarily grounds for a summary denial.” (citing Coley v. State, 74 So. 3d 184, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Lamar v. State, 768 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000))). Accordingly, since the affidavit is not inherently incredible and court records do not conclusively refute the claim, the trial court should have stricken the motion with leave to amend to sufficiently allege due diligenc…
-
Himes v. State, 2009 WL 1406347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…affidavit as inherently incredible merely due to contradictory trial testimony was improper basis for summary denial of postconviction claim, as this requires credibility determinations that only an evidentiary hearing can resolve); Lamar v. State, 768 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing summary denial where the witnesses inculpating defendant had been “substantially impeached” at trial). Similarly, the trial court also erred when it concluded that the improper execution of the “affidavit” made the…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)