DAVID HUFFMAN, 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.
David Huffman appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on DNA test results from his 1986 convictions. The court affirmed the denial because the DNA evidence showed Huffman was a contributor to the evidence and would not likely produce an acquittal on retrial, and reinstated the prior prohibition on further pro se appeals challenging his convictions.
The trial court properly denied Huffman's motion for postconviction relief because the DNA test results, showing that Huffman was a contributor to three separate instances of DNA evidence, were not of such a nature that they would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
[1] A claim of newly discovered evidence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1) requires that the facts be unknown to the movant or their attorney and unascerta…
[2] Newly discovered evidence must be admissible and of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial to warrant postconviction relief.
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“a claim of newly discovered evidence requires that the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant's attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence”
Sets forth the first prong of the newly discovered evidence test under Rule 3.850(b)(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHuffman was convicted in 1986. In 2001, he filed a motion for postconviction DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853, which was ini…
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 Due Diligence cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
David Huffman appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although we affirm the denial of Huffman’s motion, we write to explain why the appeal was entertained notwithstanding the holding in Huffman v. Singletary, 696 So. 2d 788, 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“[W]e direct the clerk of this court to reject for filing all notices of appeal and petitions for extraordinary relief arising out of Huffman’s 1986 convictions.”).
In 2001, Huffman once again challenged his 1986 convictions by filing a motion for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853, which the trial court summarily denied. On appeal, this court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, excepting from the holding in Huffman “those challenges to Huffman’s convictions premised upon rule 3.853.” See Huffman v. State, 837 So. 2d 1147, 1147 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). On remand, the trial court granted Huffman’s rule 3.853 motion and ordered DNA testing of the collected evidence.
On August 24, 2004, Huffman filed the present rule 3.850 motion, alleging that the DNA test results were newly discovered evidence entitling him to a new trial. Under rule 3.850(b)(1), a claim of newly discovered evidence requires that the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the mov-ant’s attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence. In addition, the newly discovered evidence must be admissible and it “must be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Padron v. State, 769 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (quoting Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998)).
The trial court denied Huffman’s motion for postconviction relief because the DNA test results reflect that Huffman “was a contributor to three separate instances of DNA evidence obtained from the original evidence in the case.” Because the DNA evidence is not of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial, the trial court properly denied Huffman’s motion.
This court’s previous prohibition against the filing of any further pro se attacks by Huffman involving his 1986 convictions is reinstated and is expanded to include attacks pursuant to rule 3.853.
Affirmed.
VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Espinoza v. State, 13 So. 3d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…da Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Rivera v. State, 995 So. 2d 191 (Fla.2008); Hildwin v. State, 951 So. 2d 784, 787 (Fla. 2006); Haywood v. State, 961 So. 2d 995, 996 (Fla. 4th DCA) review denied, 973 So. 2d 1123 (Fla.2007); Huffman v. State, 909 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). In light of the State’s response, the defendant requests leave to file a rule 3.850 motion, wherein he intends to challenge the testing methodology that was used in his case. In view of the Swafford decision, it may not have bee…
-
Jones v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Duval County) (M.D. Fla. 2022)…ot have known of it by the use of diligence; and (2) the newly discovered evidence is of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Hitchcock v. State, 991 So. 2d 337, 349 (Fla. 2008); see also Huffman v. State, 909 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (concluding that newly discovered evidence must also be admissible and it “must be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”). First, this Court notes Defendant’s allegations that this evidence co…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)
- Huffman v. Singletary, 696 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Padron v. State, 769 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Huffman v. State, 837 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)