CHARLES MILLS, 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 Mills's Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief based on a third party's affidavit admitting sole responsibility for the burglary, holding that such an affidavit can constitute newly discovered evidence even if the defendant was aware of the third party's involvement at trial.
A third party's affidavit admitting sole responsibility for a crime can constitute newly discovered evidence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, even if the defendant knew of the third party's involvement at trial.
[1] A third party's affidavit admitting sole responsibility for a crime constitutes newly discovered evidence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 even if the defen…
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 intelligenceCharles Mills was convicted of burglary of a conveyance. Seven years after his conviction, Ronnie Bright executed an affidavit admitting sole responsi…
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 Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
Charles Mills appeals the' trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. In his motion, -Mills alleged that a third party; Ronnie Bright, authored an affidavit seven years after Mills’s conviction, judgment, and sentence for burglary of a conveyance. In the affidavit, Bright admitted sole responsibility for the burglary and asserted that he was unwilling to incriminate himself at the time of trial. The trial court summarily denied this claim, finding that Bright’s affidavit did not qualify as newly discovered evidence because Mills was aware of the evidence at the time of trial. This court has previously concluded that a similar affidavit constituted newly discovered evidence. See Barrow v. State, 940 So.2d 1235, 1236-37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see also Brantley v. State, 912 So.2d 342, 342-43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Totta v. State, 740 So.2d 57, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kendrick v. State, 708 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Thus, we reverse the summary denial. On remand, the trial court must- either attach a portion of the record'that conclusively refutes Mills’s claim or' conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on the matter. See Barrow, 940 So.2d at 1238; Kendrick, 708 So.2d at 1013.
REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.
COHEN, C.J. and EVANDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Credo LLC v. Speyside Invs. Corp., 259 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Keontay L. Baker v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…lor v. State, 260 So. 3d 151, 160 (Fla. 2018) ("[W]ith regard to Holton's possible involvement in the murder, we conclude that this evidence was previously unavailable to Taylor, based on Dixon's previous unwillingness to testify."); Mills v. State, 225 So. 3d 420, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (holding that an affidavit from a third party admitting sole responsibility for the crimes for which the defendant was convicted and asserting that he was unwilling to incriminate himself at the time of trial constitutes new…
Authorities Cited
- Cedrick Brantley v. State, 912 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Kendrick v. State, 708 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Totta v. State, 740 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Barrow v. State, 940 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)