TOM GOMEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2008-11-05
No. 3D07-53
Before COPE and LAGOA, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
994 So. 2d 1179 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Admissibility Of Confessions Newly Discovered Evidence Motion For Postconviction Relief Postconviction Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

Concurrence
COPE, J.

COPE, J.

(concurring).

This is a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging newly discovered evidence. The defendant has offered the affidavits of Michael Rowe and Joseph La Rocca, contending that the proffered testimony exonerates him.

I concur in the denial of relief because in the motion and brief, the defendant acknowledges that Detective Martin testified at trial that the defendant had verbally confessed to his involvement in the murder. The defendant’s only comment about this confession is that it was never reduced to writing and signed by the defendant. The fact that there is no signed writing does not mean that the confession is inadmissible or must be disregarded. That being so, I join in the affirmance.*

*

The State has argued that one of the affidavits, that of Thomas Rowe, does not qualify as newly discovered evidence. However, assuming that the affiant is willing now to testify (the affidavit does not say so), the affidavit may qualify as newly discovered evidence "based on newly available testimony of defendants who were previously unwilling to testify.” Totta v. State, 740 So. 2d 57, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Brantley v. State, 912 So. 2d 342, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Recardo Clayton v. State, 34 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
    …Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Clayton then filed a post-conviction relief motion, which was considered on May 20, 2008, and denied without an evidentiary hearing. Clayton appealed and on November 5, 2008, we issued our opinion, affirming. See Clayton v. State, 994 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Clayton then filed a second 3.850 motion, which was summarily denied. We conclude that three of the four claims that Clayton raised were successive and duplicative. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in summarily denying…
  • Recardo Clayton v. State, 176 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
    …ward to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). The petition is dismissed and an order to show cause is issued. . Clayton v. State, 994 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (Mem); Clayton v. State, 34 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (Mem); Clayton v. State, No. 3D13-960 (Fla. 3d DCA April 22, [*304] 2013) (Table); Clayton v. State, 116 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (Table); Clayton v. State, 121 So. 3…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw