STANLEY GRONTKOWSKI, 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.
Court affirmed denial of successive postconviction motion for relief from 2002 felony murder and related convictions, finding newly discovered co-defendant deposition testimony would not produce acquittal.
Newly discovered deposition testimony of a co-defendant charged with felony murder does not warrant postconviction relief because it would not probably produce an acquittal, particularly where the defendant was convicted under a principal theory.
[1] Newly discovered evidence consisting of co-defendant deposition testimony does not warrant postconviction relief where the evidence, though containing some helpful statem…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrontkowski was convicted in 2002 of felony murder, aggravated burglary of a dwelling, and aggravated battery. He filed a successive postconviction mo…
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 Principal Theory cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the denial of appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief from his 2002 convictions for felony murder, aggravated burglary of a dwelling, and aggravated battery. He based his motion upon newly discovered evidence, namely, the deposition testimony of one of the co-defendants charged with felony murder along with appellant and others. While the trial court found that the motion was successive and untimely, the court also reviewed the newly discovered evidence and determined that it probably would not produce an acquittal. The co-defendant may have made some statements that could have been helpful to appellant’s defense, but on the whole his testimony actually supports the convictions. It shows that the appellant actively participated in planning the event and the beatings, even if he was not the person who delivered the fatal blows, a point not really contested at trial. As appellant was convicted of felony murder under a principal theory, the trial court’s conclusion that the newly discovered evidence would not have made that conviction any less likely is supported by the record. Even if the motion could be considered timely with respect to the newly discovered evidence, on the merits it fails. We agree with the conclusions of the trial court.
Affirmed.
WARNER, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.