Hamwi v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hamwi v. State

805 So. 2d 101, 2002 WL 83821

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-2140

StatusPublished

This text of 805 So. 2d 101 (Hamwi 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

Hamwi v. State, 805 So. 2d 101, 2002 WL 83821 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul Roberts Hamwi appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion. We find that an evidentiary hearing is required on Hamwi’s allegation that the state suppressed favorable evidence.

Hamwi and his co-defendant Paul Serio were convicted of the first degree murder of Hamwi’s former wife. The confessed killer, Robert Beckett, Sr., testified under a grant of immunity that Hamwi hired him to commit the murder and that Serio assisted. Neither Beckett nor Serio implicated anyone else in the crime.

After trial, the defense made a public records request, which yielded evidence that there had been a preliminary finding that one of the fingerprints at the crime scene might have been left by Beckett’s son. Hamwi claimed that the state’s failure to disclose that evidence before trial violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In order to prevail on this claim, Hamwi must show that the evidence was favorable to him; the evidence was suppressed by the state; and, the defense was prejudiced. See Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1155, 121 S.Ct. 1104, 148 L.Ed.2d 975 (2001). We find that Hamwi’s motion made a sufficient preliminary showing on all three factors to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

We reverse the summary denial order on this ground only. The trial court properly denied post-conviction relief on Ham-wi’s remaining claims.

SHAHOOD, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Paul Roberts Hamwi appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion. We find that an evidentiary hearing is required on Hamwi’s allegation that the state suppressed favorable evidence.

Hamwi and his co-defendant Paul Serio were convicted of the first degree murder of Hamwi’s former wife. The confessed killer, Robert Beckett, Sr., testified under a grant of immunity that Hamwi hired him to commit the murder and that Serio assisted. Neither Beckett nor Serio implicated anyone else in the crime.

After trial, the defense made a public records request, which yielded evidence that there had been a preliminary finding that one of the fingerprints at the crime scene might have been left by Beckett’s son. Hamwi claimed that the state’s failure to disclose that evidence before trial violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In order to prevail on this claim, Hamwi must show that the evidence was favorable to him; the evidence was suppressed by the state; and, the defense was prejudiced. See Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1155, 121 S.Ct. 1104, 148 L.Ed.2d 975 (2001). We find that Hamwi’s motion made a sufficient preliminary showing on all three factors to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

We reverse the summary denial order on this ground only. The trial court properly denied post-conviction relief on Ham-wi’s remaining claims.

SHAHOOD, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 So. 2d 101, 2002 WL 83821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamwi-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack