THEODORE WILLIAMS, 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 denial of post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence (co-defendant's recanting affidavit) in a drive-by shooting murder case, finding the recantation would not probably produce acquittal on retrial.
A co-defendant's recanting affidavit does not warrant post-conviction relief when, even accepting the affidavit as true, it would not probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
[1] A trial court's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a rule 3.850 motion based on a co-defendant's recanting affidavit is error, but the error is harmless when ap…
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 intelligenceWilliams was convicted in 1988 of second-degree murder and aggravated battery in a drive-by shooting. His co-defendant Vincent McDaniels, also convict…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion For Post-Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm an order denying Williams’s rule 3.850 motion premised on a claim of newly discovered evidence. Williams was convicted in 1988 of one count of second-degree murder and one count of aggravated battery in a “drive by” shooting. A co-defendant, Vincent McDaniels, was also convicted and has now executed an affidavit recanting his testimony with respect to who fired the weapon.
We recognize that the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before rejecting the recanting affidavit of a co-defendant. See generally Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We are, nevertheless, satisfied upon a full review of the record, including jury instructions and testimony of other witnesses, that, taking the 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garrick John v. State, 98 So. 3d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…s introduced at the trial. However, motions for postconviction relief must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and an evidentiary hearing is not required in every case. See e.g., Poff v. State, 41 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. Bd DCA 2010); Williams v. State, 876 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Hough v. State, 679 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). This case presents just such a circumstance. Given the overwhelming nature of the evidence against Garrick John; the history of Gabriel John’s involvement in this case; the ci…
-
Lemuel Haywood v. State, 961 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…t the evidence would “probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Mills v. State, 786 So. 2d 547, 549-50 (Fla.2001) (citing Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998)); see also Rogers v. State, 783 So. 2d 980, 1003 (Fla.2001); Williams v. State, 876 So. 2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The test for determining whether newly discovered evidence meets the required showing has been clearly stated by the supreme court. Newly discovered evidence meets this standard if “it weakens the case against [the defen…
-
D'Andre Rolack v. State, 93 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…at the trial.” Id. Although an evidentiary hearing is not automatically required before making this determination, see e.g., Poff v. State, 41 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Andrews v. State, 919 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Williams v. State, 876 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), an evidentiary hearing is the general rule rather than the exception. This is especially true in the case of recanted testimony, because the trial court is obligated to assess the weight and credibility of the witness’ new testi…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Int'l Union, 523 U.S. 1015 (U.S. 1998)
- United States ex rel. Rabushka v. Crane Co., 523 U.S. 1040 (U.S. 1998)
- E. J. Co. v. Sandvik Aktiebolag, 523 U.S. 1040 (U.S. 1998)
- Padron v. State, 769 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)