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 summary denial of his postconviction relief motion based on newly discovered evidence of trial testimony recantation. The court held that under McLin v. State, trial courts must conduct evidentiary hearings on recantation claims unless the sworn allegations are conclusively refuted by the record or inherently incredible, and reversed for such a hearing.
The trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a newly discovered evidence claim based on recanted trial testimony unless the sworn allegations are conclusively refuted by the record or inherently incredible. If no hearing is held, the trial court must accept the sworn allegations as true.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence, including recanted trial testimony, requires an evidentiary hearing unless the sworn allegations ar…
[2] Credibility determinations regarding recanted testimony are generally to be made by the trial court at an evidentiary hearing.
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 trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the sworn allegations supporting the claim are conclusively refuted by the record”
Establishes the legal standard for when evidentiary hearings are required on newly discovered evidence claims based on recantation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePadrón presented three sources of allegedly newly discovered evidence: affidavits from codefendant Jorge Gonzales (the alleged shooter) recanting his …
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 Conclusively Refuted By The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
[*394] GREEN, Judge.
Lazaro Padrón appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Padron’s motion raised a claim of newly discovered evidence based upon the recantation of trial testimony. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Padrón presented to the trial court alleged newly discovered evidence from three sources. He filed an affidavit and separate sworn statement from codefend-ant Jorge Gonzales (the shooter in the botched robbery Padrón was allegedly involved with) recanting his trial testimony and saying Padrón is innocent. He filed an affidavit and separate sworn statement from Maria Ramirez (the ex-wife of Omar Ramirez, an important state witness now apparently unavailable) alleging that Omar Ramirez, knowing Padrón was innocent, still lied in his trial testimony and implicated Padrón. He also filed three affidavits and three separate sworn statements from prisoners confirming that Jorge Gonzales did recant his trial testimony.
Recently, the Florida Supreme Court in McLin v. State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S743, - So. 2d -, 2002 WL 31027106 (Fla. Sept. 12, 2002), set out the legal principles governing the consideration of a rule 3.850 motion containing a claim of newly discovered evidence based upon the recantation of trial testimony. The court held that the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the sworn allegations supporting the claim are conclusively refuted by the record. Id. at 745, — So. 2d at-. Generally, an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve any credibility questions which arise from the sworn allegations. Id. There may be cases where, from the face of the sworn allegations, it can be determined that the allegations are inherently incredible. Id. Otherwise, if no evidentiary hearing is held, the trial court is required to accept the sworn allegations supporting the claim as true. Id.
The sworn allegations which support Pa-dron’s claim are not inherently incredible. The credibility determinations required to assess the recanted testimony need to be made by the trial court at an evidentiary hearing. Since the trial court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on this claim, this court and the trial court must accept these allegations as true. Because of this, even though the trial court attached portions of the trial transcript to its order, the allegations Padrón has made are not conclusively refuted by the record. Therefore, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on Padron’s rule 3.850 motion.
Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keen v. State, 855 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ntent required for first-degree murder. These allegations are legally sufficient to state a prima facie claim of newly discovered evidence based upon the recantation of trial testimony. See McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla.2002); Padron v. State, 827 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Smith, 837 So. 2d at 1186. Because the allegations are not refuted by the record, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which conclusively refute Keen’s c…
-
Kanisky Evans v. State, 843 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…on. This claim is so thoroughly contrary to common sense as to be inherently incredible, and does not warrant a hearing. See McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948, 955 (Fla.2002); Stephens v. State, 829 So. 2d 945, 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Padron v. State, 827 So. 2d 393, 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Affirmed. * We decline to certify direct conflict with the Fourth District cases, see, e.g., Smith v. State, 784 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), because for the reason stated in the concluding portion of this opinion, the…