ORBARY MCKINNON, 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.
Orbary McKinnon appealed the trial court's summary denial of his rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion based on newly discovered evidence—a co-defendant's affidavit recanting testimony and asserting McKinnon's non-participation in drug offenses. The Fifth District reversed, holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of the recantation evidence.
Yes. The trial court erred in summarily denying the motion based on credibility determinations regarding the recantation. An evidentiary hearing is usually required to determine whether newly discovered evidence is of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial, as this requires assessing the credibility of the recanting witness.
[1] A trial court's decision to grant or deny an evidentiary hearing on a motion for post-conviction relief is subject to de novo review.
[2] To uphold the summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, the claims made must either be facially invalid as a matter of law or be conclusively refuted by the…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“To uphold the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, the claims made must either be facially invalid as a matter of law or be conclusively refuted by the record.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing summary denials of post-conviction relief motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcKinnon filed a rule 3.850 motion seeking post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence. He attached an affidavit from his co-defendant, …
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 Conclusive Refutation By Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Orbary McKinnon (the defendant) appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his “Motion for Post-Conviction Relief, Newly Discovered Evidence,” filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
The defendant filed the instant rule 3.850 motion seeking post-conviction relief based on newly-discovered evidence. In support of his motion, the defendant attached an affidavit from his co-defendant, Norman Lockley, stating that the defendant had not participated in the underlying drug offenses. The trial court summarily denied the motion, concluding that Lock-ley’s recantation was not credible and would not have produced an acquittal on retrial. This appeal followed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion without conducting a hearing first. We agree.
The decision to grant or deny an evidentiary hearing on a rule 3.850 motion is subject to de novo review. Nordelo v. State, 93 So.3d 178, 184 (Fla. 2012). To uphold the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, the claims made must either be facially invalid as a matter of law or be conclusively refuted by the record. McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948, 954 (Fla. 2002). In undertaking this review, the factual allegations of the motion must be accepted as true unless refuted by the record. Nordelo, 93 So.3d at 184; McLin, 827 So.2d at 956.
To obtain post-conviction relief based on a newly-discovered evidence claim, the newly-discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998). In this regard, newly-discovered evidence constitutes a basis for post-conviction relief *1241if it “weakens the case against [the defendant] so as to give rise to a reasonable doubt as to his culpability.” Id. at 526 (quoting Jones v. State, 678 So.2d 309, 315 (Fla. 1996)). Newly discovered recantation evidence does not
necessarily entitle a defendant to a new trial. Florida law treats recantations with suspicion, and requires a new trial only if the court is satisfied that the recantation is true and that “the witness’s testimony will change to such an extent as to render probable a different verdict.” Armstrong v. State, 642 So.2d 730, 735 (Fla. 1994).
An evidentiary hearing is usually required to make that determination.
Robinson v. State, 736 So.2d 93, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
The trial court erred by summarily denying the defendant’s motion based on the conclusion that Lockley’s recantation was not credible. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Nordelo, 93 So.3d at 185-86 (holding that an evidentia-ry hearing is usually required to resolve legal questions on newly discovered evidence claims due to credibility determinations necessary in analysis); McLin, 827 So.2d at 956 (holding that an evidentiary hearing is generally required to determine whether newly discovered evidence is “of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J., PALMER, and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Black v. State, 230 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…he claims made must either be facially invalid as a matter of law or be conclusively refuted by the record. In undertaking"this review, the factual allegations of the motion must be accepted as' true unless refuted by the record.” McKinnon v. State, 221 So. 3d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citation omitted). First, although the post-conviction court concluded that Snead would not have testified because of self-incrimination concerns, nothing in the record supports this conclusion. See Forte v. State, 189 So…
-
Roberts v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…So. 3d 1045, 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citing Coley v. State, 74 So. 3d 184, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)); Grays v. State, 246 So. 3d 520, 521–22 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citing Simpson v. State, 100 So. 3d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)); McKinnon v. State, 221 So. 3d 1239, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing Nordelo v. State, 93 So. 3d 178, 184 (Fla. 2012)). REVERSED and REMANDED. LAMBERT, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.…
-
Hartman v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…e record." Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1999). Thus, when the trial court fails to hold an evidentiary hearing, the appellate court must accept the motion's factual allegations as true unless the record refutes them. McKinnon v. State, 221 So. 3d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Furthermore, in order to obtain relief based on a claim of newly discovered evidence, the evidence "must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defe…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)
- McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)
- Lancelot Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1994)
- Jones v. State, 678 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1996)
- Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Nordelo v. State, 93 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 2012)
- Jones v. State, 93 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 2012)