KEYON L. RICHARDSON
v.
THE 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.
A defendant seeking post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence must satisfy a two-prong test: the evidence must have been unknown to the trial court, party, or counsel at trial and unavailable through diligence, and the evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
[1] Post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence requires proof that the evidence was unknown to the trial court, party, or counsel at trial and could not have b…
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 intelligence“If a defendant seeks to make a newly discovered evidence claim, he must timely file a postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence to vacate his judgment and sentence and meet a two-prong test . . . 'First, 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. Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.'”
Court's statement of the legal standard for newly discovered evidence claims
Keyon L. Richardson appealed from a circuit court decision rejecting his post-conviction motion based on newly discovered evidence. The case involved …
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 Newly Discovered Evidence Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342, 345 (Fla. 2016) (“If a defendant seeks to make a newly discovered evidence claim, he must timely file a postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence to vacate his judgment and sentence and meet a two-prong test . . . ‘First, 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. Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.’” (quoting Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072, 1086 (Fla. 2008))); Scott v. Dugger, 634 So. 2d 1062, 1065 (Fla. 1993) (“[W]e find that the evidence asserted as new in these proceedings is not newly discovered evidence.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2008)
- Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 2016)
- Scott v. Dugger, 634 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1993)