CEDRICK BRANTLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Cedrick Brantley appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence. The newly discovered evidence is an affidavit from his co-defendant Widner Gabriel stating that Brantley was not present at or involved in the murder for which he was convicted. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding that Gabriel's affidavit qualifies as newly discovered evidence because Gabriel was previously unwilling to testify.
Gabriel's affidavit qualifies as newly discovered evidence because it is based on the newly available testimony of a defendant who was previously unwilling to testify due to Fifth Amendment concerns. The summary denial of the Rule 3.850 motion was improper because the record does not conclusively show that Brantley is entitled to no relief, requiring reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
[1] Newly discovered evidence can include testimony from a co-defendant who was previously unwilling to testify due to Fifth Amendment concerns.
[2] A postconviction relief motion under Rule 3.850 may be used to assert a claim of newly discovered evidence.
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“evidence can be treated as newly discovered where it is "based on newly available testimony of defendants who were previously unwilling to testify."”
Establishes the legal standard for newly discovered evidence in postconviction motions when a witness was previously unavailable due to unwillingness to testify.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCedrick Brantley was convicted of first-degree murder of John Beliard in 1994. Co-defendant Widner Gabriel was also charged in the case. At trial, def…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
The court grants the appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraws the court’s previous opinion, and substitutes the following opinion.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Cedrick Brantley was convicted of first degree murder of John Beliard. The co-defendant charged in the case was Widner Gabriel. The murder took place in 1994.
Defendant-appellant Brantley seeks a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. That evidence is an affidavit from his former co-defendant Widner Gabriel. Gabriel’s affidavit is a five-page narrative which explains that he took the two shooters to the victim’s home, where the shooters encountered the victim and killed him. Gabriel names the two shooters and states that the defendant was not present and was not involved in the shooting.
The State argues that this affidavit does not qualify as newly discovered evidence because co-defendant Gabriel was, of course, known to the defense at the time of trial. According to the Rule 3.850 motion, defense counsel tried to obtain the cooperation of co-defendant Gabriel, but co-defendant Gabriel refused. Based on the limited record before us, it appears that defense counsel could not have procured co-defendant Gabriel’s testimony on account of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.
Florida courts have held that evidence can be treated as newly discovered where it is “based on newly available testimony of defendants who were previously unwilling to testify.” Totta v. State, 740 So. 2d 57, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Kendrick v. State, 708 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)); State v. Gomez, 363 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) *; 15 Fla. Jur.2d Criminal Law § 2067 (2001).
In the present case, Gabriel has stated in his affidavit that he was present at the time of the shooting, he has named the two individuals who he claims did the shooting, and he has stated that the defendant was neither present nor involved. This is very similar to the affidavit in McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948, 951-52 (Fla.2002), where an evidentiary hearing was ordered.
The State argues alternatively that Gabriel would be a weak witness on the defendant’s behalf because Gabriel himself made conflicting statements about the crime when it was investigated. The State also argues that there is other evidence of the defendant’s guilt, although no physical evidence links him to the crime.
This is an appeal from a summary denial of a postconviction motion under Rule 3.850. Under this court’s standard of review, we are obligated to reverse “unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief....” Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (emphasis added). Since the record does not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim at this point, we reverse the order now before us and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
*
In Tafero v. State, 406 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), this court suggested that Gomez had been overruled sub silentio by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979). The Hallman decision had stated that Rule 3.850 could not be used to assert a claim of newly discovered evidence. Id. at 484.
Thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court receded from Hallman in Richardson v. State, 546 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1989), and held that Rule 3.850 may be used for claims of newly discovered evidence for a defendant who is in custody. Richardson, 546 So. 2d at 1039; see also Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999) (extending Rule 3.850 to claims formerly cognizable by petition for writ of error coram no-bis).
In light of these subsequent developments, Gomez remains viable as an interpretation of Rule 3.850 in the context of a claim for post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Hunter v. State, 29 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 2008)…s, Florida courts have found post-trial confessions from co-defendants to qualify as newly discovered in the sense that the evidence was not known at the time of trial and could not have been known by the use of due diligence. See Brantley v. State, 912 So. 2d 342, 342-43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (remanding for an evidentiary hearing based on the affidavit of a codefendant which stated the defendant was not present and was not involved in the shooting and based on the postconviction motion which alleged that defens…
-
Hernando Garcia v. State, 21 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…t a later-obtained affidavit of this type may qualify as newly discovered evidence "based on newly available testimony of defendants who were previously unwilling to testify.” Totta v. State, 740 So. 2d 57, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Brantley v. State, 912 So. 2d 342, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). However, the defendant has not made a claim for relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence, but has submitted the affidavit in support of his other claims.…
-
State v. Overton, 970 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…911, 915-17 (Fla.1991); Richardson v. State, 546 So. 2d 1037, 1039 (Fla.1989); Tafero v. State, 406 So. 2d 89, 91 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), superseded on other grounds, by Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592, 594-97 (Fla.1999); see also Brantley v. State, 912 So. 2d 342, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).1 The State has not cited a case in which the appellate permission requirement has been applied in the context of a. petition for writ of habeas corpus, and we decline to impose one. Indeed, writs of habeas corpus are addres…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1979)
- McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)
- Richardson v. State, 546 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1989)
- Tafero v. State, 406 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Basilio Gomez, 363 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Kendrick v. State, 708 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Totta v. State, 740 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)