HARRY LEE GOOD, 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.
Harry Lee Good appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850(b)(1) motion for post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence (victim's recantation). The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court summarily denied the motion without adequately refuting Good's claim, and the motion was facially insufficient due to Good's failure to attach the victim's affidavit or explain why it could not be obtained.
The trial court's summary denial was improper and must be reversed and remanded. Although the trial court could have properly denied the motion as facially insufficient, it failed to do so with proper explanation. On remand, if Good timely files a facially sufficient amended motion with the required affidavit, the trial court must either grant an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions conclusively refuting the claim.
[1] A trial court must state its rationale or attach specific record parts refuting each claim to support a summary denial of a post-conviction relief motion without a hearin…
[2] Attaching a trial transcript alone, without explanation or specific record references, is insufficient to support a summary denial of a post-conviction relief motion.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the court's core holding that the trial court's summary denial was improper due to its failure to adequately address the claim, and that the motion was facially insufficient due to missing required affidavit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGood filed a Rule 3.850(b)(1) motion alleging newly discovered evidence in the form of the victim's recantation. The victim's recantation affidavit ap…
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 Recantation cases and more on FLexlaw
Harry Lee Good appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1) motion alleging newly discovered evidence. Although we agree with Good that the trial court’s summary denial order fails to refute his claim, see, e.g., Auritt v. State, 958 So.2d 1052, 1053 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), because the claim is based on the victim’s recantation and Good failed to attach a copy of the victim’s sworn affidavit1 to his motion or provide an explanation as to why the required affidavit could not be obtained, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(c), we are compelled to reverse and remand with directions that the trial court strike Good’s motion as facially insufficient, allowing leave to amend. See, e.g., Delice v. State, 103 So.3d 262, 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Campbell v. State, 139 So.3d 490, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Nelson v. State, 996 So.2d 950, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
In the event Good timely files a facially sufficient amended motion,2 the trial court shall either grant an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Good’s claim.3
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LAWSON, C.J., PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foley v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 996 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Tecoy Marquis Campbell v. State, 139 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Yachtbrasil Motor Boats & Charters, LLC v. Gluck, 139 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Wisner Delice v. State, 103 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Auritt v. State, 958 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)