Lennart S. Koo v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lennart S. Koo v. State of Florida

162 So. 3d 156

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 29, 2015

Docket1D12-4866

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 162 So. 3d 156 (Lennart S. Koo v. State of Florida) 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

Lennart S. Koo v. State of Florida, 162 So. 3d 156 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinions

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

ROBERTS, J.

The motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed September 17, 2014, is DENIED.

The opinion of the Court in this case and Judge Wolfs concurrence clearly point out that the victim’s letter is not a recantation in any way, shape, or form. The letter does not contradict the victim’s trial testimony, and it does not provide any information that would tend to rebut any of the elements of the convicted crime. It merely provides after-the-fact speculation concerning the Appellant’s possible motive for committing the theft of the firearms. A post hoc rationalization does not require an evidentiary hearing where there is no part of it that could be viewed as a recantation. Therefore, our decision is consistent with any existing precedent.

WOLF, J., concurs; MAKAR, J., dissents with opinion.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

ROBERTS, J.

The motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed September 17, 2014, is DENIED.

The opinion of the Court in this case and Judge Wolfs concurrence clearly point out that the victim’s letter is not a recantation in any way, shape, or form. The letter does not contradict the victim’s trial testimony, and it does not provide any information that would tend to rebut any of the elements of the convicted crime. It merely provides after-the-fact speculation concerning the Appellant’s possible motive for committing the theft of the firearms. A post hoc rationalization does not require an evidentiary hearing where there is no part of it that could be viewed as a recantation. Therefore, our decision is consistent with any existing precedent.

WOLF, J., concurs; MAKAR, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 3d 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lennart-s-koo-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack