ANTWAINE J. GRAYS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Antwaine Grays appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence—an inmate's sworn statement admitting to the crimes for which Grays was convicted. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the motion without an evidentiary hearing, as the affidavit was material and not inherently incredible.
The trial court erred in summarily denying the postconviction motion. Because the affidavit was material to whether Grays committed the charged crimes and was not inherently incredible as a matter of law, an evidentiary hearing was required to allow the court to evaluate the credibility of the newly discovered evidence and determine whether it would probably have resulted in acquittal.
[1] A trial court errs in summarily denying a postconviction motion alleging newly discovered evidence if the evidence is not inherently incredible or obviously immaterial to…
[2] Factual matters concerning the weight and credibility of newly discovered evidence generally require an evidentiary hearing in postconviction proceedings.
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“Although the trial court understandably viewed the affidavit as suspect, it was error to determine the propounded evidence to be "non-credible" without an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the core holding that summary credibility determinations are improper without a hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrays was convicted of crimes and filed a postconviction relief motion claiming newly discovered evidence. A fellow inmate provided a sworn statement …
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 Credibility Determinations cases and more on FLexlaw
Antwaine Grays appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, alleging newly discovered evidence. The alleged newly discovered evidence was the sworn statement of a fellow inmate admitting to the commission of the crimes for which Grays had been convicted. In the sworn statement, the affiant also details circumstances surrounding the alleged crimes, states that Grays had no involvement in the crimes, and sets forth reasons why the information had not been disclosed earlier. Although the trial court understandably viewed the affidavit as suspect,1 it was error to determine the propounded evidence to be "non-credible" without an evidentiary hearing.
We review the trial court's order de novo. Utile v. State , 235 So.3d 1045, 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Summary denial will be upheld if the motion was either facially invalid or the claims were conclusively refuted by the record. Id.
Here, the postconviction court was tasked with considering all newly discovered evidence that would be admissible at trial and determining whether such evidence, had it been introduced at trial, would have probably resulted in an acquittal. In reaching this conclusion, the judge would necessarily have to evaluate the weight of both the newly discovered evidence and the evidence that was introduced at trial. Nordelo v. State , 93 So. 3d 178, 185 (Fla. 2012) (citing Jones v. State , 591 So.2d 911, 916 (Fla. 1991) ). As a result, these types of factual matters generally require an evidentiary hearing to allow the court to test the credibility of the newly discovered evidence "unless the affidavit is inherently incredible or obviously immaterial to the verdict and the sentence." Id. (quoting Davis v. State , 26 So.3d 519, 526 (Fla. 2009) ).
In the present case, the fellow inmate's affidavit provided evidence that would have been material to the question of whether Grays committed the charged crimes. Furthermore, the postconviction court did not find the affidavit to be "inherently incredible," nor would it have been appropriate for the court to have done so. See Simpson v. State , 100 So.3d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding that characterizing exculpatory affidavit as inherently incredible merely due to contradictory trial testimony is improper basis for summary denial of postconviction claim, as this requires credibility determinations *522that only evidentiary hearing can resolve). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's summary denial order and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED for evidentiary hearing.
EVANDER, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Borders v. State, 309 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…d. Consequently, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to relief. The decision of a postconviction court to deny an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 motion based on newly discovered evidence is subject to de novo review. Grays v. State, 246 So. 3d 520, 521 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Furthermore, although an affidavit produced by a co-defendant many years after the alleged crime(s) is inherently suspicious, that suspicion alone does not automatically support summary denial. Simpson v. State, 100 So. 3d…
-
Roberts v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…matters, we agree. Based on the following authorities, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. See Utile v. State, 235 So. 3d 1045, 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citing Coley v. State, 74 So. 3d 184, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)); Grays v. State, 246 So. 3d 520, 521–22 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citing Simpson v. State, 100 So. 3d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)); McKinnon v. State, 221 So. 3d 1239, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing Nordelo v. State, 93 So. 3d 178, 184 (Fla. 2012)). REVERSED and REMANDED. LAMBER…
-
Taylor v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- Davis v. State, 26 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 2009)
- Nordelo v. State, 93 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 2012)
- Jones v. State, 93 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 2012)
- Simpson v. State, 100 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Utile v. State, 235 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)