ANTWAINE J. GRAYS
v.
STATE
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 trial court errs in summarily denying a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence without an evidentiary hearing when the evidence is material and not inherently incredible or obviously immaterial.
[1] A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging newly discovered evidence unless the affidavit is inherently incredible or o…
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“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.'”
Court explaining the standard for when an evidentiary hearing is required in newly discovered evidence cases.
Antwaine Grays was convicted of crimes and filed a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging newly discovered evidence in the form of a sworn statemen…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ANTWAINE J. GRAYS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-3437
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed May 4, 2018
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Keith A. Carsten, Judge.
Antwaine J. Grays, Clermont, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
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,
2 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. Noradello 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
REVERSED and REMANDED for evidentiary hearing.
EVANDER, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- Davis v. State, 26 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 2009)
- Simpson v. State, 100 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Utile v. State, 235 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)