JAVON MASON, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to withdraw plea based on newly discovered evidence.
Javon Mason appealed the summary denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, which was based on newly discovered evidence. The appellate court reviewed…
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
[*81] PER CURIAM.
Javon Mason appeals from an order summarily denying his motion to withdraw his plea made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1). On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Mason’s newly discovered evidence claim and remand because the record fails to conclusively refute Mason’s motion for relief. An evidentiary hearing is thus needed to resolve the credibility of Mason’s allegation of actual innocence. See Barrow v. State, 940 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). If an evidentiary hearing is not conducted below, an appellate court must accept the defendant’s factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record. McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla.2002); Foster v. State, 810 So. 2d 910, 914 (Fla.2002). At the ensuing evidentiary hearing, it will be Mason’s burden to show why neither he nor his trial counsel could not have learned earlier about the co-defendants’ exculpatory testimony through the exercise of due diligence, and what the specific nature of the exculpatory evidence is. Barrow v. State, 940 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Further, the trial court will have to resolve whether the evidence is of such a character that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Id.
Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State, 118 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…a motion for postconviction relief, this court must reverse “unless the record [*301] shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief.” Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (emphasis added); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 8.850(d); Mason v. State, 976 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). If the trial court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, “an appellate court must accept the defendant’s factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record.” Mason, 976 So. 2d at 80. Further, summary…
-
Duncan v. State, 232 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D)). If the postconviction court fails to conduct an evidentiary hearing, we “must accept the defendant’s factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record.” Id. at 301 (quoting Mason v. State, 976 So. 2d 80, 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)). To prevail on a claim of newly discovered evidence, a defendant must meet two requirements. First, the evidence must not have been known' by the trial' court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear…
Authorities Cited
- McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)
- Foster v. State, 810 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2002)
- Barrow v. State, 940 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)