Blanco v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blanco v. State

636 So. 2d 588, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4589, 1994 WL 182722

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Blanco v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 679 So. 2d 792 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 13, 1994·No. No. 93-298·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse because we conclude the trial court applied the incorrect standard when denying a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. On remand, the court shall reconsider the motion and apply the standard set forth by the supreme court in Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla.1991).

We find no merit in appellant’s remaining point on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HARRIS, C.J., and COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse because we conclude the trial court applied the incorrect standard when denying a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. On remand, the court shall reconsider the motion and apply the standard set forth by the supreme court in Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla.1991).

We find no merit in appellant’s remaining point on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HARRIS, C.J., and COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Blanco v. State, 636 So. 2d 588, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4589, 1994 WL 182722 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

636 So. 2d 588 (Blanco v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related