Charles Mills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Charles Mills v. State

225 So. 3d 420, 2017 WL 3896918, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12907

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 2017

DocketCase 5D17-517

StatusPublished

This text of 225 So. 3d 420 (Charles Mills v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles Mills v. State, 225 So. 3d 420, 2017 WL 3896918, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12907 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLIS, J.

Charles Mills appeals the' trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. In his motion, -Mills alleged that a third party; Ronnie Bright, authored an affidavit seven years after Mills’s conviction, judgment, and sentence for burglary of a conveyance. In the affidavit, Bright admitted sole responsibility for the burglary and asserted that he was unwilling to incriminate himself at the time of trial. The trial court summarily denied this claim, finding that Bright’s affidavit did not qualify as newly discovered evidence because Mills was aware of the evidence at the time of trial. This court has previously concluded that a similar affidavit constituted newly discovered evidence. See Barrow v. State, 940 So.2d 1235, 1236-37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see also Brantley v. State, 912 So.2d 342, 342-43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Totta v. State, 740 So.2d 57, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kendrick v. State, 708 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Thus, we reverse the summary denial. On remand, the trial court must- either attach a portion of the record'that conclusively refutes Mills’s claim or' conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on the matter. See Barrow, 940 So.2d at 1238; Kendrick, 708 So.2d at 1013.

REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.

COHEN, C.J. and EVANDER, J., concur.

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

WALLIS, J.

Charles Mills appeals the' trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. In his motion, -Mills alleged that a third party; Ronnie Bright, authored an affidavit seven years after Mills’s conviction, judgment, and sentence for burglary of a conveyance. In the affidavit, Bright admitted sole responsibility for the burglary and asserted that he was unwilling to incriminate himself at the time of trial. The trial court summarily denied this claim, finding that Bright’s affidavit did not qualify as newly discovered evidence because Mills was aware of the evidence at the time of trial. This court has previously concluded that a similar affidavit constituted newly discovered evidence. See Barrow v. State, 940 So.2d 1235, 1236-37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see also Brantley v. State, 912 So.2d 342, 342-43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Totta v. State, 740 So.2d 57, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kendrick v. State, 708 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Thus, we reverse the summary denial. On remand, the trial court must- either attach a portion of the record'that conclusively refutes Mills’s claim or' conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on the matter. See Barrow, 940 So.2d at 1238; Kendrick, 708 So.2d at 1013.

REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.

COHEN, C.J. and EVANDER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 3d 420, 2017 WL 3896918, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-mills-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack