HUGO QUENTAL BARROS, 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.
Hugo Quental Barros appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence—a recantation affidavit from one of two victims who testified against him at trial. The court reversed, holding that an evidentiary hearing is required to evaluate the credibility and materiality of the recantation rather than allowing summary denial based on the trial court's credibility determinations.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that when a recantation affidavit is not inherently incredible or obviously immaterial, an evidentiary hearing is required to evaluate the veracity and impact of the recanting witness's testimony, rather than allowing summary denial based on the trial court's credibility determinations.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence in the form of a recantation requires an evidentiary hearing when the recantation is not inherently…
[2] Recantations are generally considered exceedingly unreliable.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“recantations are 'exceedingly unreliable.'”
Establishes the stringent standard for evaluating recanted testimony in postconviction proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt trial, two witnesses testified that they were shot and identified Barros as the shooter. Barros filed a postconviction motion attaching an affidavi…
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 Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Hugo Quental Barros, appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which alleged one claim of newly discovered evidence. In his motion, Appellant alleges that one of the two victims who testified against Appellant at trial has recanted. The trial court summarily denied the motion finding that the recantation is not credible, and that even if it were credible, it is contradicted by the other victim's trial testimony. We reverse, finding that an evidentiary hearing on this claim is necessary.
At Appellant's trial, two witnesses testified that they were shot and identified Appellant as the shooter. Appellant's motion now attaches an affidavit from one of the victims recanting his testimony. The recanting witness alleges that Appellant was not the shooter and that he was forced to identify Appellant as the shooter due to threats from law enforcement.
Florida courts recognize that "recantations are 'exceedingly unreliable.' " Archer v. State , 934 So.2d 1187, 1196 (Fla. 2006) (collecting cases). Thus, when a movant alleges newly discovered evidence in the form of recanted testimony, a movant is entitled to a new trial only if the trial court finds that the recantation is true and that "the witness's testimony will change to such an extent as to render probable a different verdict." Robinson v. State , 736 So.2d 93, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Armstrong v. State , 642 So.2d 730, 735 (Fla. 1994) ). Generally, in such circumstances, an evidentiary hearing is required to evaluate the veracity of the recanting witness. Id.
In this case, the trial court determined the recanting witness's credibility and weighed conflicting testimony based upon the proffered affidavit. Given that the affidavit was not "inherently incredible" nor "obviously immaterial," see Davis v. State , 26 So.3d 519, 526 (Fla. 2009), we conclude that the trial court improperly made these determinations without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing.
As such, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
EVANDER, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T'shumbie Collins v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…on of Davis and Nordelo In situations involving alleged newly discovered evidence in the form of a recantation, it is generally recognized that an evidentiary hearing is required “to evaluate the veracity of the recanting witness.” Barros v. State, 254 So. 3d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Two frequently cited decisions that discuss the requirements to obtain an evidentiary hearing are Davis1 and Nordelo. Under the standard articulated in these cases, the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing “unl…
-
Dontravis Smith v. State, 262 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Lancelot Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1994)
- Davis v. State, 26 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 2009)
- Archer v. State, 934 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2006)
- Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)