FRANZ RIGG
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 conviction may only be set aside based on newly discovered evidence if the evidence was unknown at trial despite the exercise of due diligence and would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
[1] To set aside a conviction based on newly discovered evidence, the moving party must show the evidence was unknown at trial despite the exercise of due diligence and that…
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“Two requirements must be met in order for a conviction to be set aside on the basis of newly discovered evidence. First, in order to be considered newly discovered, the evidence 'must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known [of it] by the use of diligence.' Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”
Standard from Jones v. State for newly discovered evidence claims
Franz Rigg sought postconviction relief in Miami-Dade County based on claimed newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied his motion.…
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 In Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 18, 2023 Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0603 Lower Tribunal No. F01-292
________________
Franz Rigg,
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, Michelle Delancy, Judge. Daniel A. Callahan, P.A., and Daniel A. Callahan (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998) (“Two requirements must be met in order for a conviction to be set aside on the basis of newly discovered evidence. First, in order to be considered newly discovered, the evidence ‘must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known [of it] by the use of diligence.’ Torres–
Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So. 2d 1321, 1324–25 (Fla. 1994). Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (providing that a claim for postconviction relief must be filed no later than two years after the judgment and sentence become final “unless it alleges that. . . the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant’s attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, and the claim is made within 2 years of the time the new facts were or could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)
- Torres-Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1994)