BILLY JOE HOLTON, 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.
The court reversed the trial court's summary denial of a post-conviction motion based on newly discovered DNA evidence matching a co-defendant, holding that the record did not conclusively refute the claim that such evidence would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
A trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion based on newly discovered DNA evidence must be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing when the record does not conclusively refute the claim that the evidence would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion based on newly discovered evidence must be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing unless t…
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 intelligenceBilly Joe Holton was convicted of burglary with assault, aggravated assault, sexual battery, kidnapping, and robbery with a deadly weapon. He filed a …
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 Probability Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Billy Joe Holton, who was convicted of burglary with an assault, aggravated assault, sexual battery, kidnapping, and robbery with a deadly weapon, appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his Motion for Post-Conviction Relief and to Vacate Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing in part that the record does not conclusively refute his claim that the newly discovered DNA evidence that is a match to his co-defendant would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand for an evidentia-ry hearing. See McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948, 955-57 (Fla.2002) (explaining that in order to affirm a trial court’s summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion based on a newly discovered evidence claim, the claim must either be facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record, and noting that “ordinarily an evidentiary hearing is required for the trial court to properly determine ... whether the newly discovered evidence is of ‘such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial’ ”); Brantley v. State, 912 So.2d 342, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (reversing the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion and remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing because “we are obligated to reverse ‘unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief ”) (emphasis omitted).
REVERSED and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing.
LEWIS, C.J., PADOVANO and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earnest D. Bolton v. State, 218 So. 3d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…are conclusively refuted by the record. Id. In this case, the post-conviction court failed to attach any portion of the record that conclusively shows Appellant is not entitled to relief, and this Court is obligated to reverse. See Holton v. State, 130 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). REVERSED and REMANDED. WINOKUR and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)
- Cedrick Brantley v. State, 912 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)