Slade v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Slade v. State

10 So. 3d 1205, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8772, 2009 WL 1675974

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 2009

Docket4D09-277

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 So. 3d 1205 (Slade 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

Slade v. State, 10 So. 3d 1205, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8772, 2009 WL 1675974 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Curtis Slade appeals a trial court order which summarily denied his motion for postconviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence. The motion was based on an affidavit from a cellmate of appellant who witnessed the incident on which Slade’s convictions were based. Appellant alleged that this cellmate’s account of events would sufficiently impeach the State’s key witness and victim such that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. See Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla.1991).

We reject the trial court’s denial of this motion as successive and untimely, because the claim of newly discovered evidence, if legally sufficient, would overcome those obstacles. However, the motion as pleaded did not show whether Slade or defense counsel could not have known of the eyewitness’s account of the events at the time of trial by use of diligence. In accordance with Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of relief and remand for it to grant appellant leave to amend his motion to comport with the pleading requirements for a claim of newly discovered evidence.

Reversed and Remanded for FuHher Proceedings.

WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Curtis Slade appeals a trial court order which summarily denied his motion for postconviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence. The motion was based on an affidavit from a cellmate of appellant who witnessed the incident on which Slade’s convictions were based. Appellant alleged that this cellmate’s account of events would sufficiently impeach the State’s key witness and victim such that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. See Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla.1991).

We reject the trial court’s denial of this motion as successive and untimely, because the claim of newly discovered evidence, if legally sufficient, would overcome those obstacles. However, the motion as pleaded did not show whether Slade or defense counsel could not have known of the eyewitness’s account of the events at the time of trial by use of diligence. In accordance with Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of relief and remand for it to grant appellant leave to amend his motion to comport with the pleading requirements for a claim of newly discovered evidence.

Reversed and Remanded for FuHher Proceedings.

WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 So. 3d 1205, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8772, 2009 WL 1675974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slade-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack