JEAN RENE FRANKLIN W
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion based on newly discovered evidence (a codefendant's post-trial confession) and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to evaluate the credibility of the claim.
Post-trial confessions from codefendants constitute newly discovered evidence that may provide an exception to the two-year time limitation of Rule 3.850(b), requiring an evidentiary hearing rather than summary denial.
[1] Post-trial confessions from codefendants may constitute newly discovered evidence providing an exception to the two-year time limitation of Florida Rule of Criminal Proce…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted in 1999 of three counts of armed robbery of a fast food restaurant alongside two codefendants, who were acquitted at trial. Ye…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a summary denial of a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging newly discovered evidence. We reverse for an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
Appellant was convicted of three counts of armed robbery of a fast food restaurant in 1999. At trial, appellant was tried with two codefendants and the trial judge granted motions for judgments of acquittal in favor of the codefendants.
Appellant has now filed an untimely Rule 3.850 motion claiming newly discovered evidence. The motion is based on an affidavit from one of the codefendants who had been acquitted at trial. The codefendant asserts that appellant was not present at the robbery and confesses that he was the person who robbed the restaurant.
Post-trial confessions from codefendants can amount to newly discovered evidence that provides an exception to the two-year time limitation of Rule 3.850(b). See Kendrick v. State, 708 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Brantley v. State, 912 So. 2d 342, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Roundtree v. State, 884 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
The motion, files, and records in this case do not conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief. At an evidentiary hearing, the trial court will be able to evaluate the credibility of the claim.
Reversed and remanded.
GROSS, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Roundtree v. State, 884 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)