DAVID CURTIS SMITH
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.
A successive Rule 3.850 motion based on newly discovered evidence of juror concealment during voir dire that is facially valid and not conclusively refuted by the record must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A successive Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence of juror misconduct that is facially valid and not conclusively refuted by the…
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 intelligenceSmith was convicted fifteen years ago of sexual battery upon a person under twelve, kidnapping of a child under thirteen with aggravated child abuse a…
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 Aggravated Child Abuse 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
DAVID CURTIS SMITH,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-101
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed November 15, 2019
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County,
R. Gregg Jerald, Judge.
Susanne K. Sichta and Rick A. Sichta, of The Sichta Firm, LLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
WALLIS, J.,
Appellant appeals the trial court's order summarily denying his successive Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 Motion for Postconviction Relief. Appellant's motion was based on newly discovered evidence of juror misconduct that came to light fifteen years after he was found guilty and convicted of sexual battery upon a person under
2 twelve, kidnapping of a child under thirteen with aggravated child abuse and/or sexual battery, attempted first-degree murder, and aggravated child abuse. Specifically, Appellant's ground of newly discovered evidence claims a juror concealed during voir dire that she had been the victim of sexual crimes as a child despite being questioned on that topic. The evidence of the concealment was revealed on September 2, 2017, when a local newspaper published a Letter to the Editor purportedly written by the same juror, which may have contradicted her answers to voir dire questions. We find that the Appellant's claims are both facially valid and not conclusively refuted by the record. See Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253, 259 (Fla. 1999). Therefore, we remand this case for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing. See James v. State, 717 So. 2d 1086, 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.
EISNAUGLE, J., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.