KYLE RAY HIMES
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Kyle Ray Himes appeals from a summary denial of his postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 based on newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied his claims as successive, but the appellate court reversed because the claims were facially valid and not conclusively refuted by the record.
The appellate court reversed the summary denial of postconviction relief because Appellant's claims of newly discovered evidence were facially valid and not conclusively refuted by the record. Under Florida law, summary denial is improper unless claims are either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record, and when the record does not conclusively preclude relief, an evidentiary hearing is required.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion is reversible when the claims are facially valid and the record does not conclusively refute t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Kyle Ray Himes filed a 3.850 motion for postconviction relief asserting several grounds based on newly discovered evidence. The trial court …
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 Facially Invalid Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
October 15, 2018 PER CURIAM. Appellant, Kyle Ray Himes, appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Appellant asserted several grounds for relief based on newly discovered evidence. The lower court denied all such claims as successive in its order rendered on July 17, 2017. However, because the lower court did not include attachments of record evidence which conclusively refuted Appellant’s claims, we reverse.
“To uphold the trial court's summary denial of claims raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.” Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1999). “On appeal from the denial of relief, unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Here, Appellant’s claims appear to be facially valid, and they are not conclusively refuted by the record. In fact, the State concedes error. We therefore reverse the lower court’s summary denial of Appellant’s claims of newly discovered evidence and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.