ERIC MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Eric Miller appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence of a witness allegedly identifying a different perpetrator of the robbery. The appellate court reverses and remands because the trial court failed to make required factual findings and legal conclusions when denying the motion.
The trial court's denial of the motion is reversed and remanded because the court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by rule 3.850(d). Such findings are necessary to allow appellate review of whether the ruling is based on competent substantial evidence.
[1] A trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law when ruling on a motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.
[2] An appellate court cannot review a trial court's ruling on a post-conviction motion without the benefit of the trial court's factual findings and legal conclusions.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 an evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall grant a prompt hearing thereon and shall cause notice thereof to be served on the state attorney, determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for trial courts to make findings and conclusions when ruling on post-conviction relief motions after an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller was convicted by jury of strong-arm robbery for snatching a bag and purse from tourists in a car. He was apprehended hiding near the police per…
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 Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eric Miller (“the Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for post conviction relief. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
A jury convicted the Defendant of strong-arm robbery for snatching a bag and purse from two tourists inside a car. He was caught hiding within the police perimeter area shortly after the robbery, and the purse was located near his hiding place. Both tourists identified the Defendant at a show-up and at trial.
The Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 claiming that he should receive a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Specifically, he alleges that he encountered a witness in prison who claimed to have seen a different person commit the robbery ten years earlier. The State conceded that this information could not have been discovered earlier through the use of due diligence, so the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. The trial court denied the motion following the evidentiary hearing without making any factual findings or legal conclusions.
The rule governing motions for post conviction relief provides that, “[i]f an evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall grant a prompt hearing thereon and shall cause notice thereof to be served on the state attorney, determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (emphasis added).
It is impossible for this Court to determine on appeal whether the trial court’s ruling is based on competent substantial evidence without the benefit of the trial court’s findings. We remand this cause to the trial court for its entry of an order containing factual findings and legal conclusions as required by rule 3.850(d). Dillbeck v. State, 882 So. 2d 969 (Fla.2004).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.