LAZARO PADRON, 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.
Lazaro Padrón appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion seeking to set aside murder and robbery convictions based on newly discovered evidence—the recantation of testimony by co-defendant Jorge Gonzalez. The court reversed and remanded, holding that Gonzalez's recantation constitutes newly discovered evidence and remanding for proper analysis of whether it would likely produce an acquittal.
The court held that Gonzalez's recantation meets the standard for newly discovered evidence because it could not have been known at trial and is qualitatively different from his prior inconsistent statements to counsel and family. The court reversed the trial court's denial and remanded for proper analysis of whether the recantation would likely produce an acquittal, requiring the trial court to attach supporting documents upon remand.
[1] Newly discovered evidence, such as a witness recantation, must have been unknown to the trial court, the party, and counsel at the time of trial, and could not have been…
[2] A witness's recantation of prior testimony qualifies as newly discovered evidence when the recantation itself had not occurred at the time of trial.
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“evidence 'must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known [of it] by the use of diligence.'”
Establishes the legal standard for newly discovered evidence in Florida postconviction proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePadrón was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery with a firearm, and first-degree murder. A key witness against …
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 Newly Discovered Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
[*433] PER CURIAM.
Lazaro Padrón appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Padrón seeks to have his convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery with a firearm, and first-degree murder set aside because of newly discovered evidence. The newly discovered evidence is the recantation of testimony by one of the State’s witnesses against Padrón. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the evidence was not newly discovered and that the new testimony of the witness would not have produced an acquittal at trial. We reverse and remand.
The witness who has recanted his testimony is Jorge Gonzalez, a co-defendant who entered a plea to the charges against him, and who actually shot the murder victim. The trial court determined Gonzalez’ recantation was not newly discovered because Padron’s trial counsel argued to the jury that Gonzalez was lying, and because Padron’s counsel brought out on cross-examination that Gonzalez had previously told trial counsel that Padrón was innocent and had made the same statements to Padron’s family. Apparently, although it is not clear from the record, Gonzalez stated at trial that he had made these statements because he had been threatened. In his recantation, Gonzalez stated that he had not been threatened at the time of the trial.
To be considered as newly discovered evidence, the “evidence ‘must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known [of it] by the use of diligence.’ ” Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521(Fla.1998) (quoting Torres-Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So. 2d 1321, 1324-25 (Fla.1994)).
Because Gonzalez’ recantation had not been made at the time of trial, it could not have been known or discovered at the time of his trial. His apparent inconsistent statements to Pa-dron’s family and counsel, while giving trial counsel fodder with which to attempt to impeach Gonzalez’ credibility, are qualitatively different from his recantation which demonstrates a willingness to publicly disavow Padron’s participation in the entire criminal episode. Gonzalez’ recantation meets the standard for newly discovered evidence. See Roberts v. State, 678 So. 2d 1232, 1235 (Fla.1996).
The trial court’s conclusion to the contrary was error. Once evidence is determined to be newly discovered, it must be admissible and it “must be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Jones, 709 So. 2d at 521 (citation omitted).
The trial court analyzed the record and determined that Gonzalez’ recantation would not produce an acquittal for Padrón in light of the other evidence against him. Most of the documents the trial court reviewed and cited were not attached to its order, making it impossible for this court to provide meaningful review of the determination. Upon remand, if the trial court once again determines that Gonzalez’ recantation would not have produced an acquittal for Padrón, it should attach the documents upon which it relies to make this determination.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 876 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…affidavit as true, it cannot be said that the new testimony would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. See Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1040, 118 S.Ct. 1350, 140 L.Ed.2d 499 (1998). Compare Padron v. State, 769 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(absenee of record attachments made it impossible for appellate court to provide meaningful review of finding that recantation of co-defendant would not produce an acquittal). FARMER, C.J., STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Smith v. State, 23 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…f newly discovered evidence, the defendant alleges that certain evidence existed at the time of trial that was unknown to the defendant and his or her counsel and that it could not have been discovered with due diligence. See, e.g., Padron v. State, 769 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). For example, a witness who was driving by the scene of a convenience store robbery and did not stop to identify herself at the time of trial may be a source of newly discovered evidence when defense counsel inadvertently dis…
-
Moore v. State, 903 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” In addition, the newly discovered evidence must be admissible and it “must be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Padron v. State, 769 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (quoting [*240] Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998)). In some cases, proceedings on a motion for postconviction DNA testing may include a Youngblood claim if the Young-blood claim is properly noticed and pleaded.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)
- Torres-Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1994)
- Roberts v. State, 678 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1996)