ROBERT ANDREWS, 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.
Robert Andrews sought post-conviction relief based on a newly discovered affidavit from co-defendant Jackson recanting trial testimony and claiming Andrews had no knowledge of the robbery. The trial court summarily denied the motion as inherently incredible, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that while the affidavit met the diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence, it was so internally contradictory and inconsistent with witness testimony that no evidentiary hearing was required.
The trial court may summarily deny a newly discovered evidence motion without an evidentiary hearing when the sworn allegations in the affidavit are inherently incredible on their face, even if the evidence satisfies the diligence requirement. Jackson's affidavit was inherently incredible because it directly contradicted his sworn plea testimony and multiple witness identifications, creating no reasonable probability of acquittal on retrial.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim of newly discovered evidence based on a recantation of trial testimony, unless the allegations are conclusive…
[2] A claim of newly discovered evidence requires proof that the defendant did not know of the information before trial and could not have discovered it with due diligence.
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“Although the affidavit does satisfy the first requirement for newly discovered evidence, that it could not have been known by the use of diligence at the time of the trial, the trial court summarily denied the motion on the ground that it was inherently incredible.”
Establishes that while Andrews met the diligence prong, the trial court properly focused on the inherent credibility of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrews was convicted of robbery with a firearm along with co-defendants Smith and Jackson. At trial, Jackson testified under oath at his plea hearing…
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 Evidentiary Hearing Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Defendant moved for post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence in the form of an affidavit of a participant in the robbery for which defendant was convicted. Although the affidavit does satisfy the first requirement for newly discovered evidence, that it could not have been known by the use of diligence at the time of the trial, the trial court summarily denied the motion on the ground that it was inherently incredible. We affirm.
Defendant was charged, along with co-defendants Smith and Jackson, with robbery with a firearm, and found guilty. Jackson, who signed the affidavit in this case, had been at large prior to trial and unavailable. After the trial, Jackson was found and pleaded guilty.
In his affidavit, on which defendant’s motion was based, Jackson stated that he participated in the robbery with Smith and a third person, that after the robbery Jackson gave defendant some of the money from the robbery to repay a debt, and that Jackson hid a weapon used in the robbery in a bedroom of defendant’s home without defendant’s knowledge. Defendant, according to Jackson, had no knowledge of the robbery.
The state conceded that the affidavit was newly discovered evidence, because Jackson had not been found before the trial, but contended that it was so inherently incredible that there was no probability that it could produce an acquittal on retrial. Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991).
Jackson’s affidavit was in direct contradiction of Jackson’s statements under oath at his plea hearing, when he informed the court about defendant’s participation in the robbery, defendant’s shooting the victim, defendant’s escaping with Jackson in the get-away car, and defendant’s sharing the proceeds of the robbery with Jackson. In addition, several witnesses, including some of defendant’s relatives, identified defendant as the participant in the robbery, as having possession of the proceeds, and as possessing the weapon used in the robbery.
In McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla.2002), our supreme court held that an evidentiary hearing is required on a claim of newly discovered evidence, based on the recantation of trial testimony, unless the sworn allegations are either conclusively refuted by the record or, on their face, are inherently incredible. We conclude that the trial court was correct in determining that Jackson’s affidavit was inherently incredible and that no evidentiary hearing was necessary. Taylor v. State, 877 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Johnson v. State, 844 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simpson v. State, 100 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ve known prior to May 1996. After the State filed its response the trial court summarily denied the motion, concluding that CJ.’s affidavit was “inherently incredible,” and hence probably would not produce an acquittal on retrial. Andrews v. State, 919 So. 2d 552, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Taylor v. State, 877 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). This appeal follows. Nordelo v. State, 93 So. 3d 178 (Fla.2012), and McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla.2002), spell out the legal standards governing review of a c…
-
Placide v. State, 189 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…here, from the face of the affidavit,, it can be determined that the affidavit is ‘inherently incredible.’ ” McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948, 955 (Fla.2002) (citing Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); see also Andrews v. State, 919 So. 2d 552, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). This is such a case. Blackwell in her affidavit asserts that she witnessed the alleged conversation between jurors in the hallway during “the trial recess” in 1992. First, Blackwell does not specify at what point in the pr…
-
D'Andre Rolack v. State, 93 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…scovered evidence and the evidence which was introduced 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 ass…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)
- Taylor v. State, 877 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Johnson v. State, 844 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Deidria J. Davis v. Cmty. Television Found. OF S. Fla. WPBT & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 844 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)