STEVEN R. WHITSETT, 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.
Steven Whitsett appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief based on the victim's recantation of accusations supporting his guilty plea to twelve counts of lewd acts. The court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing, finding that the victim's recantation constitutes potentially newly discovered evidence that warrants a hearing.
The court held that the victim's recantation affidavit requires an evidentiary hearing because appellant's claim was not facially insufficient or conclusively refuted by the record. Although appellant was aware of the allegations and the victim's prior denials, he was operating under the assumption that the victim would testify to most of the charged acts.
[1] A defendant seeking post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence must demonstrate a manifest injustice.
[2] A guilty-in-best-interest plea involves a defendant who does not admit guilt but acknowledges sufficient evidence for a conviction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 appellant maintained at his plea hearing that he was innocent, he was laboring under the assumption that the victim would testify that appellant had committed most of the acts described in the twelve charges.”
This statement establishes why the victim's recantation constitutes newly discovered evidence despite defendant's prior awareness of the allegations—the critical change is the victim's willingness to support the defendant's position rather than the prosecution's.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1994, Whitsett was charged with twelve counts of lewd acts against a fifteen-year-old boy. Although he admitted to a police officer that he committ…
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 Manifest Injustice cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant moved for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850 based on newly discovered evidence, and his motion was summarily denied. He argues that his convictions based on a plea should be vacated, because the victim who had accused him of twelve counts of lewd acts has now recanted. We reverse for an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant was charged in 1994 with twelve counts of lewd acts against a fifteen-year-old boy. Although he admitted to a police officer that he had committed some, but not most of the acts, he maintained his innocence when he entered a plea of “guilty in best interest,” in exchange for an eight year sentence to be followed by fifteen years of probation. A “guilty in best interest” plea is one in which the defendant does not admit guilt but does admit that there is sufficient evidence on which a conviction could be obtained. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). In January 2007, the victim signed an affidavit stating that the only unlawful acts which appellant actually committed were taking nude photos of the victim and that appellant masturbated himself in front of the victim. The victim stated that all other allegations involving different consensual sexual acts were not true. He attributed these false accusations to his own mental illness and stated that he had accused others who were employed at the mental health treatment center where he was being treated at the time. Although, as we said earlier, appellant had confessed to a few of the twelve acts charged, appellant maintained at his plea hearing that he was innocent.
In this case the trial court concluded that the victim’s affidavit does not qualify as newly discovered evidence because appellant “was aware of the allegations against him and he was aware that the victim, even at that time was denying that some of the acts occurred.” The court also noted that if appellant had gone to trial, the victim would have had to testify and been subject to cross-examination.
We are unable to agree with the trial court that the alleged newly discovered evidence does not require an evidentiary hearing. Although appellant maintained at his plea hearing that he was innocent, he was laboring under the assumption that the victim would testify that appellant had committed most of the acts described in the twelve charges. Because appellant’s claim was not facially insufficient or conclusively refuted by the record, we remand for an evidentiary hearing. The burden will be on the appellant to demonstrate a manifest injustice. Johnson v. State, 936 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (When a defendant seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty on the basis of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must show that there has been a manifest injustice.) See also Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
SHAHOOD, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State, 118 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…t Court of Appeal determined an evidentiary hearing was required where the victim recanted and the defendant pled while “laboring under the assumption that the victim would testify that appellant had committed [the charged acts].” Whitsett v. State, 993 So. 2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Perez’s claim of manifest injustice is not and cannot be conclusively refuted by the [*302] present record. Perez’s confession stands at direct odds with the newly discovered testimonial evidence to the contrary, which Pe…
-
Hernandez v. State, 20 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…orting a Rule 3.850 motion); Foster, 810 So. 2d at 914 (finding that the trial court may only summarily deny claims raised in a Rule 3.850 where the claims are either facially invalid or conclusive refuted by the record); see also Whitsett v. State, 993 So. 2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (confirming that in a case where the victim has recanted accusations regarding commission of a crime, a defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea on the basis of such newly discovered evidence must prove that there has be…
Authorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970)
- Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Johnson v. State, 936 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)