JOSEPH RAMIREZ
v.
STATE
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.
Evidence of a testifying expert's exaggerated educational qualifications does not constitute newly discovered evidence when it could have been discovered through diligent inquiry at the time of trial.
[1] Newly discovered evidence claims must demonstrate that the evidence was not known by the trial court, party, or counsel at the time of trial, and could not have been disc…
[2] Information discoverable through a diligent request for available records is not considered newly discovered evidence.
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“the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence.”
Standard for newly discovered evidence under Florida law, citing Tompkins v. State
Joseph Ramirez filed a successive motion for postconviction relief over a decade after his final conviction, alleging that the serologist who testifie…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.141(B)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 10, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1136 Lower Tribunal No. F83-29429
________________
Joseph Ramirez,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge. Joseph Ramirez, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, and MILLER, JJ. MILLER, J.
Appellant, Joseph Ramirez, challenges the summary denial of his
successive motion for postconviction relief, alleging newly discovered
evidence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. His motion below
was grounded upon a claim that the testifying serologist at his trials, the final
of which was conducted well over a decade ago, exaggerated her
educational qualifications.1 See Ramirez v. State, 75 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2011). It is axiomatic this information, if indeed true, could have been
discovered long ago through a diligent request for available records from the
relevant educational institution. See Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072,
1086 (Fla. 2008) (In order to prevail on a newly discovered evidence claim,
“the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or
counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense
counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence.”); Demps v. State,
515 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla. 1987) (“[I]ssues [which] could have and should
have been raised either on direct appeal or in [the defendant’s] first request
for post conviction relief . . . are . . . procedurally barred.”) (citations omitted);
see also Johnston v. State, 27 So. 3d 11, 22 (Fla. 2010) (“[T]here was no
merit to [the defendant’s] postconviction claim that information about
Bunker's qualifications constituted newly discovered evidence in this case.”)
(citation omitted); Correll v. State, 698 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 1997) (“[T]he
evidence proffered by [the defendant] does not qualify as newly discovered
evidence because it was discoverable at the time of trial. However, even if
the evidence was not discoverable at the time of trial, the discrepancies
between the level of education, training, and experience Bunker testified to
at trial and the asserted level of education, training, and experience she
actually had were not so great as to make any difference in the outcome of
the case.”). Accordingly, we affirm the well-reasoned order under review.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2008)
- Johnston v. State, 27 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 2010)
- Correll v. State, 698 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1997)
- Bennie Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1987)