DEVIRAL BAIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Deviral Bain is before us on his fourth Rule 3.850 motion. He has been consistently unsuccessful thus far and his luck has not changed. We affirm the trial court’s denial of his latest effort.
He claims “newly discovered” evidence that the State withheld impeachment evidence from the defense. He contends that this evidence is contained in an internal investigation file involving Officer Williams, who testified against him at trial. The problem with Bain’s current position is that the evidence is neither newly discovered nor is it admissible evidence. The information contained in the internal investigation file which is relied on by Bain, with due diligence, should have been discovered earlier. More damaging, however, is the fact that the claimed new evidence would have been inadmissible in any event. See Jackson v. State, 545 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1989) (evidence of police officer’s department reprimands inadmissible as impeachment evidence as it concerned inadmissible general acts of misconduct; reprimand not a conviction).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)…ial court should initially consider whether the evidence would have been admissible at trial or whether there would have been any evidentiary bars to its admissibility. See Johnson v. Singletary, 647 So. 2d 106, 110-11 (Fla.1994); cf. Bain v. State, 691 So. 2d 508, 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Once this is determined, an evaluation of the weight to be accorded the evidence includes whether the evidence goes to the merits of the case or whether it constitutes impeachment evidence. See Williamson v. Dugger, 651 So.…
-
Lamore v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 545 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1989)