Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of Florida - unoffical reports - Opinions

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
JACK DONALD BURNS,
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant,
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v.
CASE NO. 1D03-0506
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
___________________________/
Opinion filed November 13, 2003.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
Jan Shackelford, Judge.
Appellant, pro se.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Elizabeth Fletcher Duffy, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court's summary denial of his rule 3.850
motion. The appellant was convicted after a jury trial for arson and burning to defraud
an insurer. The appellant claims that he has newly discovered evidence, which if

known at trial would probably have resulted in his acquittal, in the form of a new
affidavit by a codefendant acknowledging that this codefendant lied at trial in
implicating the appellant as a principal in an arson as having paid the codefendant to
commit the arson.
Recantation evidence is a type of newly discovered evidence. See Stephens v.
State, 829 So. 2d 945, 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). To be newly discovered, the
evidence must be such that neither the appellant, his counsel, nor the trial court could
have discovered the facts in the affidavit at the time of trial through the exercise of due
diligence, and must be such that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. See
Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1040 (1998).
The trial court summarily denied the appellant's claim because at trial the
appellant had presented testimony by another prisoner that the appellant's codefendant
had told this other prisoner that he had been pressured to lie about the appellant's
involvement in the arson in order to cut himself a deal. The trial court reasoned that
the appellant had therefore known at trial that the codefendant was lying, and thus the
fact of the codefendant's lying could not constitute newly discovered evidence. In
this regard, the trial court erred.
Even though the appellant knew at trial that the codefendant was lying, the
appellant could not have gotten the codefendant to admit that he was lying earlier, and
2

thus the recantation is newly discovered evidence that could not have been obtained
earlier with due diligence. See Lee v. State, 677 So. 2d 312, 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996);
Kendrick v. State, 708 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cammarano v. State,
602 So. 2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Since the codefendant's testimony appears to have been key in obtaining the
appellant's conviction, an evidentiary hearing is warranted. See McLin v. State, 827
So. 2d 948, 954-55 (Fla. 2002); Stephens, 829 So. 2d at 945-46; Robinson v. State,
736 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
We accordingly reverse the summary denial and remand with instructions for
the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED.
ERVIN, BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
3

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE