MICHAEL RUFFIN, 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.
Michael Ruffin challenged his armed robbery conviction through a Rule 3.850 motion claiming newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied the motion as untimely, but the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that newly discovered evidence claims fall within exceptions to the two-year filing deadline and require an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court erred in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Newly discovered evidence claims fall within exceptions to the two-year filing deadline under Rule 3.850(b). When a defendant makes a sufficient claim of newly discovered evidence—that it was unknown to the defendant and counsel at trial and would probably produce an acquittal on retrial—an evidentiary hearing is required.
[1] A claim of newly discovered evidence is an exception to the time limitations for filing a motion for postconviction relief.
[2] Newly discovered evidence must have been unknown to the defendant, trial court, or counsel at the time of trial to qualify for 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“Although rule 3.850 motions must be filed within two years of the date that the judgment and sentence become final, claims of newly discovered evidence fall within the exceptions to the time limitation.”
Establishes that newly discovered evidence claims are exempt from the strict two-year filing deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuffin was convicted by jury of armed robbery with a firearm. He filed a Rule 3.850 motion claiming newly discovered evidence in the form of an affida…
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
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. Following a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm. He filed the present motion attacking his conviction on grounds of newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied the motion as untimely.
The trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his newly discovered evidence claim had merit. Although rule 3.850 motions must be filed within two years of the date that the judgment and sentence become final, claims of newly discovered evidence fall within the exceptions to the time limitation. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b); Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991). In order for evidence to be considered newly discovered and thus form a basis for postconviction relief, it must have been unknown to the defendant, the trial court or defendant’s counsel at the time of trial and must be such that would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. See Jones, 591 So. 2d at 915-16. The appellant provided an affidavit of an alleged participant in the crime, stating that he and another man, who was not the appellant, actually committed the robbery. He further alleged that he could not have previously discovered the identity of the affiant because, at the time of trial, only the alias of the affiant was known. Finally, the appellant claimed that in light of the evidence offered at trial, the affidavit would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Because the appellant made a sufficient claim, an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether the affidavit constitutes newly discovered evidence. See Jones, 591 So. 2d at 915; McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948, 956 (Fla.2002). Therefore, we reverse and remand this claim for an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royale Hatcher v. State, 114 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of Hatcher’s first eleven (11) claims, but reverse as to Claims XII and XIII. Hatch-er’s allegations in Claim XII are sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. See Ruffin v. State, 957 So. 2d 40, 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (evidentiary hearing warranted where defendant submitted affidavit of alleged participant stating that he and another man, who was not defendant, actually committed robbery and where defendant alleged that in light of evidenc…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)