Meek v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Meek v. State

801 So. 2d 287, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17478, 2001 WL 1578142

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 2001

DocketNo. 4D01-2974

StatusPublished

This text of 801 So. 2d 287 (Meek 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

Meek v. State, 801 So. 2d 287, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17478, 2001 WL 1578142 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

FARMER, J.

In this belated appeal from an order summarily denying relief under rule 3.850, we reverse for an evidentiary hearing. Both the claim of newly discovered evidence in the form of different medical opinions based on recently released documents from the FBI files, and the failure to disclose Brady materials in the form of the Sheriffs Department report are legally cognizable and should not have been denied summarily. Because of this reversal the trial court should also allow defendant to amend his rule 3.850 motion to include his claim that the indictment was obtained by perjury.

In view of the circumstances of this case, we suggest that the trial court proceed with all deliberate speed in scheduling the evidentiary hearing and to advance it over all other pending matters seeking postcon-viction relief.

' REVERSED AND REMANDED.

STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

FARMER, J.

In this belated appeal from an order summarily denying relief under rule 3.850, we reverse for an evidentiary hearing. Both the claim of newly discovered evidence in the form of different medical opinions based on recently released documents from the FBI files, and the failure to disclose Brady materials in the form of the Sheriffs Department report are legally cognizable and should not have been denied summarily. Because of this reversal the trial court should also allow defendant to amend his rule 3.850 motion to include his claim that the indictment was obtained by perjury.

In view of the circumstances of this case, we suggest that the trial court proceed with all deliberate speed in scheduling the evidentiary hearing and to advance it over all other pending matters seeking postcon-viction relief.

' REVERSED AND REMANDED.

STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

801 So. 2d 287, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17478, 2001 WL 1578142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meek-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.