RICHEEN PROPHETE
v.
THE 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.
A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence must satisfy the requirement that the defendant or counsel could not have known of the evidence through the use of diligence.
[1] To obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must demonstrate that the evidence is of such character that the defendant or counsel could not have…
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 intelligenceRicheen Prophete appealed from a trial court decision in Miami-Dade County, seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.…
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 Motion For New Trial Based On Newly Discovered Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 12, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1199 Lower Tribunal No. F02-24095 ________________
Richeen Prophete, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Maria Miranda, Judge.
Law Offices of Michelle Walsh, P.A., and Michelle Walsh, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Wyatt v. State, 78 So. 3d 512, 527 (Fla. 2011) (setting forth standard to obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, including requirement “that defendant or his counsel could not have known [of it] by the use of diligence” (internal quotation marks omitted)) (quoting Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998)); LaFlippe v. State, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D275 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 31, 2024) (same).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)
- Wyatt v. State, 78 So. 3d 512 (Fla. 2011)