ROYALE HATCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2012-08-31
No. 5D12-1391
PALMER, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
114 So. 3d 1019 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2012) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Newly Discovered Evidence Motion For Postconviction Relief Evidentiary Hearing Postconviction Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Newly Discovered Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Hatcher appeals from the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of Hatcher’s first eleven (11) claims, but reverse as to Claims XII and XIII. Hatch-er’s allegations in Claim XII are sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. See Ruffin v. State, 957 So.2d 40, 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (evidentiary hearing warranted where defendant submitted affidavit of alleged participant stating that he and another man, who was not defendant, actually committed robbery and where defendant alleged that in light of evidence offered at trial, this newly discovered evidence would probably produce acquittal on retrial). Additionally, as the State properly concedes, the trial court’s order failed to address Claim XIII. See Bridges v. State, 81 So.3d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (when trial court summarily denies one or more grounds of motion for postconviction relief, the order must state its rationale for each issue raised).

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.

PALMER, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Vaughan v. State, 205 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
    …ly denied the motion as to those items. However, the trial court’s failure to address whether Hicks’s affidavit warrants an evi-dentiary hearing requires reversal. See, e.g., Purse v. State, 185 So. 3d 627, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Hatcher v. State, 114 So. 3d 1019, 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Bridges v. State, 81 So. 3d 616, 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Therefore, we reverse and remand for consideration of this claim. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. ORFINGER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.…
  • Lively v. State, 264 So. 3d 367 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw