RODRICK WIMBLERY
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.
Newly discovered evidence that does not meet the requirement of being of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial does not warrant postconviction relief.
[1] Newly discovered evidence must be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial to warrant postconviction relief, and an appellate court may not…
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 intelligence“Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such [a] nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”
Statement of the second prong of the two-part test for newly discovered evidence established in Long v. State and Tompkins v. State.
Rodrick Wimblery appealed from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence. The trial court found the cla…
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 Due Diligence Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 28, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0038 Lower Tribunal No. F15-3835 ________________
Rodrick Wimblery, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alberto Milian, Judge.
Daniel J. Tibbitt, P.A., and Daniel Tibbitt, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 Appellant, Rodrick Wimblery, appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence. Putting aside any failure to exercise due diligence, our review of the record yields the conclusion the trial court’s finding that the claim did not meet “the second, critical requirement of the two-part test established for newly discovered evidence” is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Poff v. State, 41 So. 3d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342, 345 (Fla. 2016) (“First, the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence. Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such [a] nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”) (quoting Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072, 1086 (Fla. 2008)). “This Court, as an appellate body, has no authority to substitute its view of the facts for that of the trial judge when competent evidence exists to support the trial judge’s conclusion.” State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174, 175 (Fla. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm the order denying relief.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2008)
- State v. Spaziano, 692 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1997)