GLENN HAROLD
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.
Glenn Harold appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence. The Fifth District reversed, holding that summary denial was improper because the witness affidavit was not inherently incredible and the trial evidence did not conclusively refute it.
The court held that summary denial was improper because the witness affidavit was not inherently incredible and the trial court record did not conclusively refute the claim. The trial court may summarily deny such motions only when the affidavit is inherently incredible or the evidence is obviously immaterial, or when trial evidence conclusively refutes the new evidence.
[1] A trial court may summarily deny a motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence only if the evidence is inherently incredible or obviously immateri…
[2] Summary denial of a postconviction relief motion is inappropriate when the trial court must assess the credibility of new testimony.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Summary denial is rarely appropriate if the trial court needs to assess the credibility of the new testimony.”
Establishes the high bar for summary denial in postconviction relief cases involving witness testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarold filed a Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief with an affidavit from a witness who testified she was present at the incident involving Ha…
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 Conclusively Refute cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 5D2023-2891 LT Case No. 2007-CF-7026-A _____________________________
GLENN HAROLD,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Jonathan D. Sacks, Judge.
W. Charles Fletcher, of Fletcher Law, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Damaris E. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
May 31, 2024
KILBANE, J.
Glenn Harold, (“Appellant”), appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, in which he alleged a claim of newly discovered evidence in the form of a witness affidavit. Appellant attached an affidavit from a witness who testified that she was present at the time of the incident, witnessed the altercation between Appellant and the victim, and explained why she had not previously come forward. Because the affidavit is not inherently incredible and the record does not conclusively refute this claim, we reverse.
Summary denial is rarely appropriate if the trial court needs to assess the credibility of the new testimony. McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948, 955 (Fla. 2002). Likewise, the second prong of the newly discovered evidence inquiry typically requires an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 956. If the affidavit is “inherently incredible” or the new evidence is “obviously immaterial,” the court may summarily deny the motion. Id.
The State argues that the trial court could weigh the evidence presented at trial against the new evidence and summarily deny the claim with attachments. However, this Court recently found that the trial court may do so only to the extent the evidence presented at trial conclusively refutes the claim and the pertinent portions of the record are attached to the order. Collins v. State, 369 So. 3d 1231, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). Here, although the trial evidence contradicted portions of the affidavit, it did not conclusively refute the affidavit. See Himes v. State, 310 So. 3d 542, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“[T]he mere fact that an affidavit is contradicted by trial testimony is also not necessarily grounds for a summary denial.” (citing Coley v. State, 74 So. 3d 184, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Lamar v. State, 768 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000))).
Accordingly, since the affidavit is not inherently incredible and court records do not conclusively refute the claim, the trial court should have stricken the motion with leave to amend to sufficiently allege due diligence and if sufficiently alleged, set the matter for an evidentiary hearing. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order summarily denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LAMBERT and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)
- Coley v. State, 74 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Green v. State, 310 So. 3d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
- Lamar v. State, 768 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Sotolongo v. State, 369 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)