Morton v. State

659 So. 2d 723, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9319, 1995 WL 518819
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Morton v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 545
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 5, 1995·No. No. 94-1245·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for new trial. We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the trial court failed to address the alleged grounds pursuant to rule 3.600(a)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. On remand, the trial court should determine whether appellant established that he discovered new and material evidence, to wit: evidence supporting a defense of mental incapacity, which, if introduced at the trial would probably have changed the verdict, and which the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial. Rule 3.600(a)(3), Fla. R.Crim.P.

BOOTH, MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

Morton v. State, 659 So. 2d 723, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9319, 1995 WL 518819 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

659 So. 2d 723 (Morton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.