LUIS RIVERA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of postconviction relief, finding grounds one through six time-barred and legally insufficient, and ground seven based on conclusory statements, but allowed Rivera to refile a legally sufficient motion based on newly discovered evidence.
A postconviction motion for relief based on newly discovered evidence must contain specific factual allegations rather than conclusory statements, and the evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
[1] Postconviction motions based on newly discovered evidence must contain specific factual allegations rather than conclusory statements, and the evidence must be of such na…
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 intelligence“[I]n order to provide relief, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”
Standard for newly discovered evidence in postconviction relief motions, citing Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla.1991)
Luis Rivera appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, raising seven grounds for relief.…
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 Legally Insufficient Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Luis Rivera appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm without comment the trial court’s denial of relief as to the issues referred to in its order as grounds one through six on the basis that they were time-barred and legally insufficient. Concerning the seventh ground, we affirm without prejudice to Rivera’s filing a legally sufficient motion.
The trial court correctly determined that Rivera’s seventh ground was based on con-clusory statements that did not warrant relief. “[I]n order to provide relief, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla.1991); Robinson v. State, 770 So. 2d 1167, 1170 (Fla.2000). Relief is not warranted when the allegations are based on “tenuous speculation.” Davis v. State, 736 So. 2d 1156, 1159 (Fla.1999). Our decision is without prejudice to Rivera’s filing a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 based on newly discovered evidence within sixty days of the issuance of our mandate. Should he do so, the trial court must determine whether the evidence qualifies as newly discovered evidence and, if so, whether it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. See Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998).
Affirmed.
DAVIS and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
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)
- Ceasar Robinson v. State, 770 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2000)
- Davis v. State, 736 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1999)