ALFRED SCHEXNEIDER, 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.
Appellant Schexneider challenged a trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on allegedly newly discovered evidence. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the proffered evidence—hearsay affidavits about an overheard conversation—was legally insufficient to meet the standard for newly discovered evidence because it would not probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
The court held that the alleged newly discovered evidence was legally insufficient to satisfy the requirement for postconviction relief. The evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay, was unlikely to be usable for impeachment purposes as it related to a collateral matter, and was at best equivocal even if admissible.
[1] Newly discovered evidence must be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial to warrant postconviction relief.
[2] Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, even if it is newly discovered.
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 newly discovered evidence [is] of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial”
The legal standard that a movant must satisfy to obtain postconviction relief for newly discovered evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of sexual batteries against a child victim. Approximately one year after trial, he obtained affidavits from two individuals cl…
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 New Trial Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion requesting postconviction relief because of allegedly newly discovered evidence, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because we conclude that the trial court correctly held that the allegations were legally insufficient to establish that the alleged newly discovered evidence was of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial, we affirm.
The alleged newly discovered evidence consisted of affidavits from two individuals who claimed to have overheard a conversation between the child victim of the sexual batteries for which appellant was convicted and the child’s mother roughly a year after appellant’s trial. The information would clearly constitute inadmissible hearsay. It is also most unlikely that the information could be used for impeachment purposes because it relates to a collateral matter. Finally, even if it were admissible on some theory, the information regarding the alleged conversation is, at best, equivocal.
To demonstrate entitlement to a new trial in a rule 3.850 motion, the mov-ant must establish, among other things, that “the newly discovered evidence [is] of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla.1991) (emphasis in original). Accord Robinson v. State, 770 So. 2d 1167, 1170 (Fla.2000); Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998); Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997). Given the nature of the alleged newly discovered evidence as set out in appellant’s motion, we agree with the trial court that the motion was legally insufficient to satisfy this requirement. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
ALLEN, C.J., CONCURS; WOLF, J., DISSENTS WITH WRITTEN OPINION.
WOLF, J.,
dissenting.
Contrary to the conclusion reached by the trial court and the majority, appellant’s motion, along with the accompanying supporting affidavits, present a facially sufficient claim of newly discovered evidence requiring either attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or an evidentiary hearing. See Robinson v. State, 770 So. 2d 1167, 1170 (Fla.2000); Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998). I find the appellant’s allegations were neither equivocal nor pertaining only to a matter of collateral impeachment and, according to appellant’s motion, related directly to the veracity of the testimony of the only witness to appellant’s crimes. I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)
- Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1997)
- Ceasar Robinson v. State, 770 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2000)