KENDAL IAN MAJOR
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.
Newly discovered evidence must be unknown at trial through no lack of diligence and must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial to warrant setting aside a conviction.
[1] To set aside a conviction based on newly discovered evidence, the evidence must have been unknown to the trial court, parties, and counsel at the time of trial through no…
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“Two requirements must be met in order for a conviction to be set aside on the basis of newly discovered evidence. First, in order to be considered newly discovered, the evidence 'must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his 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.”
Statement of law from Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998)
Kendal Ian Major appealed a conviction in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, seeking postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence under Flor…
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 Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 25, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0293 Lower Tribunal No. F02-35678
________________
Kendal Ian Major,
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, Joseph D. Perkins, Judge. Ana M. Davide, P.A., and Ana M. Davide, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998) (“Two requirements must be met in order for a conviction to be set aside on the basis of newly discovered evidence. First, in order to be considered newly discovered, the evidence ‘must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known [of it] by the use of diligence.’ Torres–
Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So. 2d 1321, 1324-25 (Fla.1994). Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (providing that a claim for postconviction relief must be filed no later than two years after the judgment and sentence become final “unless it alleges that. . . the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant’s attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, and the claim is made within 2 years of the time the new facts were or could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)
- Torres-Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1994)