MARSHALL S. VAUGHAN, 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 reversed summary denial of post-conviction relief motion because trial court failed to address newly discovered affidavit from alleged victim recanting her allegations.
A trial court must address all claims in a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion, including newly discovered evidence of recantation by the alleged victim.
[1] A trial court must address all claims presented in a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion and cannot summarily deny the motion without considering newly discovered evidence…
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 intelligenceVaughan pleaded no contest to felony battery of Cristina Hicks. In his post-conviction motion, Vaughan presented a newly discovered affidavit from Hic…
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
Marshall S. Vaughan challenges the order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to address one of his claims. We agree and reverse.
Vaughan pled no contest to the felony battery of Cristina Hicks. In his rule 3.850 *880motion, Vaughan alleged newly discovered evidence, including, among others, an affidavit by Cristina Hicks, in which she stated that she fabricated all of the allegations against Vaughan and he “never put his hands on” her. The trial court denied Vaughan’s motion without addressing Hicks’s affidavit. Instead, the trial court’s order only addressed the other alleged newly discovered documents and correctly denied the motion as to those items. However, the trial court’s failure to address whether Hicks’s affidavit warrants an evi-dentiary hearing requires reversal. See, e.g., Purse v. State, 185 So.3d 627, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Hatcher v. State, 114 So.3d 1019, 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Bridges v. State, 81 So.3d 616, 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Therefore, we reverse and remand for consideration of this claim.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Purse v. State, 185 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Bridges v. State, 81 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Royale Hatcher v. State, 114 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)