EDWARD G. ROBINSON, 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.
Edward Robinson appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence—an affidavit from another inmate allegedly admitting to Robinson's crimes. The appellate court reversed, holding that the postconviction court's denial was improper because it relied on incomplete documentation that did not conclusively refute Robinson's claim.
The appellate court held that the postconviction court's summary denial was improper because the documents attached to the order did not conclusively refute Robinson's claim. The court reversed and remanded, requiring the postconviction court to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve it.
[1] A postconviction court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a defendant's claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[2] Documents attached to a postconviction court's order must conclusively refute the defendant's claim to justify summary denial.
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“Because the documents attached to the postconviction court's order do not conclusively establish that the inmate's purported admission was not likely to produce an acquittal on retrial and do not otherwise conclusively refute Robinson's claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
States the standard for summary denial of postconviction motions—attached documents must conclusively refute the claim, which did not occur here.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson is incarcerated for crimes for which he seeks postconviction relief. He filed a motion alleging newly discovered evidence: an affidavit from …
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 Conclusively Refute cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1220] SILBERMAN, Judge.
Edward G. Robinson appeals the summary denial of his February 2006 motion for postconviction relief that he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the documents attached to the postconviction court’s order do not conclusively refute Robinson’s claim.
Robinson sought relief based on a claim of newly discovered evidence. He alleged that a prison inmate had recently admitted to committing the crimes for which Robinson is in prison. He attached to his motion an affidavit of the other inmate containing the purported admission.
The postconviction court ordered the State to respond to Robinson’s motion. The State argued that Robinson had filed a prior postconviction motion raising other claims, which resulted in an evidentiary hearing. The State contended that the judge who conducted the earlier hearing denied relief after considering trial testimony that identified Robinson as the perpetrator of the crimes. The State asserted that in light of the result of the prior proceeding, Robinson’s motion should be denied because the prison inmate’s admission would not likely produce an acquittal at any retrial. The State attached to its response excerpts from a 1996 postconviction hearing, consisting solely of the prosecutor’s argument as to the identification evidence that had been presented at trial and the presiding judge’s comments regarding that testimony in relation to the issues then before the court.
Based on the State’s response, the post-conviction court denied Robinson’s current motion. In its order, the court referred to the earlier postconviction hearing and what it understood had been the “overwhelming evidence” presented at trial that identified Robinson as the perpetrator. The court attached the 1996 transcript excerpts to its order but did not attach any trial transcripts. Further, it appears that the court did not review the trial transcripts.
Although the excerpts from the 1996 hearing describe identification evidence that had been presented at Robinson’s trial, the issues considered at the 1996 hearing differ significantly from the issue now presented by Robinson. Most notably, the 1996 hearing did not involve an evaluation of the admission now relied on by Robinson in relation to the trial evidence. Because the documents attached to the postconviction court’s order do not conclusively establish that the inmate’s purported admission was not likely to produce an acquittal on retrial and do not otherwise conclusively refute Robinson’s claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Kendrick v. State, 708 So. 2d 1011, 1012-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). On remand, the postconviction court must reconsider Robinson’s motion and either attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute his claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the claim.
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hempstead v. State, 980 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…If, on remand, the post-conviction court summarily denies relief on any claim, the court must attach record documents that conclusively refute that claim; otherwise, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim. See Robinson v. State, 956 So. 2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In all other respects we affirm the denial of postconviction relief. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur. . Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). . Brady v. Maryland…
-
Smith v. State, 39 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…ilar clothing. The attached records do not conclusively refute Smith’s claim that he could not have learned of the confession sooner and do not show that this confession would be unlikely to - produce an acquittal on retrial. See Robinson v. State, 956 So. 2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). It appears from the record provided that the crucial evidence implicating Smith was the identification by the officer who made the purchase. Drummond’s confession would have supported Smith’s assertion at trial that the off…
Authorities Cited
- Kendrick v. State, 708 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)