KEVIN LEE BURNS, 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.
Kevin Lee Burns appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion for extraordinary relief based on allegedly newly discovered evidence. The court held that while the postconviction court properly considered the motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, Burns's claims were facially insufficient, and the proper procedure was to strike the motion with leave to amend rather than summarily deny it.
The postconviction court properly considered the motion but erred in summarily denying it because the claims were facially insufficient. When postconviction claims are facially insufficient, the court should strike them with leave to amend rather than deny the motion outright.
[1] A postconviction motion presenting claims of newly discovered evidence is properly considered under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[2] A claim of newly discovered evidence must allege that the motion was filed within two years from the date the evidence could have been discovered with due diligence.
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“A claim of newly discovered evidence must be filed within two years from the date the evidence could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence.”
Establishes the threshold requirement and two-year timeline for newly discovered evidence claims under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurns filed a postconviction motion for extraordinary relief raising claims of newly discovered evidence in connection with a plea where his juvenile …
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
Kevin Lee Burns challenges the summary denial of his postconviction motion for extraordinary relief. Because the motion presented claims involving allegedly newly discovered evidence, the postconviction court properly considered it pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.1 However, because Burns failed to allege a facially sufficient claim, the post-conviction court should have stricken the motion and allowed him an opportunity to amend.
A claim of newly discovered evidence must be filed within two years from the date the evidence could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1); see Bolender v. State, 658 So.2d 82, 85 (Fla. *971995). Therefore, as a threshold requirement, Burns had to not only allege but also demonstrate that his motion was filed within two years from the date that the evidence could have been discovered. See Bolender, 658 So.2d at 85. Burns failed to make the required allegations. As the postconviction court found, Burns gave no indication when or how he discovered the evidence or why it could not have been discovered sooner. Furthermore, Burns failed to allege that withdrawal of the plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. See Bradford v. State, 869 So.2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that Bradford’s rule 3.850 claim of newly discovered evidence was facially insufficient where he failed to allege that withdrawal of the plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice). Thus, Burns’ claims were facially insufficient.
Based on this facial insufficiency, the postconviction court denied Burns’ motion. However, when claims in a postcon-viction motion are facially insufficient, the postconviction court should strike them with leave to amend2 within a reasonable time rather than denying the motion. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to strike Burns’ newly discovered evidence claims and provide him with a reasonable time to amend them.
Reversed and remanded.
LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blake v. State, 152 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…the evidence could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, a defendant must “not only allege but also demonstrate that his motion was filed within two years from the date that the evidence could have been discovered” Burns v. State, 110 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). In his motion, Mr. Blake did not allege when or how he learned of the newly discovered facts. In that respect, his claims were insufficiently pleaded. When claims in a postconviction motion are facially insufficient, the pos…
-
Scott v. State, 122 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…iant’s discovery as a witness. Appellant has not shown either the timeliness of the motion (two years from the date of discovery of the “new evidence”) or that the defense in his case exercised due diligence in finding this evidence. Burns v. State, 110 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). However, the denial should have been without prejudice in order to allow appellant a reasonable period of time to file an amended motion, if he can do so in good faith. Id. Appellant shall be granted sixty days from the date…
-
Tribbitt v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…seeks relief under the newly discovered evidence exception of rule 3.850(b)(1) he was required to demonstrate "due diligence" in discovering the new evidence (i.e., the unconveyed plea offer) when he filed his rule 3.850 motion. See Burns v. State, 110 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). However, proof of due diligence and proof of existence of the an evidentiary hearing that the twenty-year plea offer existed. See Forbes, 269 So. 3d at 680 (holding that to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel c…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Bolender v. State, 658 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1995)
- Bradford v. State, 869 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)