EARL ENMUND, 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.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary denial of postconviction relief for newly discovered evidence because the trial court failed to support its finding that the defendant abandoned his claim.
A trial court must support its summary denial of a postconviction motion with attached record materials or hold an evidentiary hearing when the defendant presents a witness affidavit claiming newly discovered evidence.
[1] A trial court must either attach record materials supporting its denial of a postconviction motion or conduct an evidentiary hearing when the defendant presents a witness…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarl Enmund was convicted in 1975 of two counts of first-degree murder and armed robbery, originally sentenced to death but later reduced to life with…
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 Burden Of Proof On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Earl Enmund appeals an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
On September 30, 1975, Enmund was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed robbery. Although En-mund was originally sentenced to the death penalty, his sentence was later reduced to life in prison with a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory. In his motion for postconviction relief, Enmund claims that he has newly discovered evidence. Attached to Enmund’s motion is the witness affidavit of Johnny Foster, which alleges that Foster saw three people running from the murder scene and that Enmund was not present.
The trial court denied Enmund’s claim, finding that Enmund “abandoned or dismissed his claim of independent evidence regarding Johnny Foster.” However, the trial court failed to attach anything to its order supporting such finding.
We note that Enmund’s motion for postconviction relief was filed on October 2, 1998, and pleadings may have been entered in the record which would support the trial court’s finding.
However, we do not have such in the record on appeal.
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Enmund’s postconviction motion and remand with directions that the trial court either attach portions of the record refuting Enmund’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.