Zelaya v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zelaya v. State

11 So. 3d 426, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5782, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1003

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 2009

Docket3D08-3264

StatusPublished

This text of 11 So. 3d 426 (Zelaya 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

Zelaya v. State, 11 So. 3d 426, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5782, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1003 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUAREZ, J.

Wilfredo A. Zelaya appeals from a summary denial of a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing.

The defendant has filed the affidavit of the victim’s mother, which he claims is newly discovered evidence. The affidavit states that the victim, who was under twelve years of age at the time of the charged crime, has told her that the crimes did not actually take place. The trial court summarily denied defendant’s motion of newly discovered evidence. Under this court’s standard of review, we are obligated to reverse “unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief....” Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). On the face of this pleading and accompanying affidavit, we cannot determine whether the recantation is true, or whether the evidence can be deemed newly discovered and was timely raised *427 under the rules. Therefore, because the record does not at this time conclusively refute the defendant’s claim, we reverse the order now before us and remand for an evidentiary hearing for the trial court to determine whether or not this evidence qualifies as newly discovered, and for such other proceedings as may be appropriate. See Roberts v. State, 678 So.2d 1232 (Fla.1996); Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 916 (Fla.1991); Brantley v. State, 912 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

SUAREZ, J.

Wilfredo A. Zelaya appeals from a summary denial of a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing.

The defendant has filed the affidavit of the victim’s mother, which he claims is newly discovered evidence. The affidavit states that the victim, who was under twelve years of age at the time of the charged crime, has told her that the crimes did not actually take place. The trial court summarily denied defendant’s motion of newly discovered evidence. Under this court’s standard of review, we are obligated to reverse “unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief....” Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). On the face of this pleading and accompanying affidavit, we cannot determine whether the recantation is true, or whether the evidence can be deemed newly discovered and was timely raised *427 under the rules. Therefore, because the record does not at this time conclusively refute the defendant’s claim, we reverse the order now before us and remand for an evidentiary hearing for the trial court to determine whether or not this evidence qualifies as newly discovered, and for such other proceedings as may be appropriate. See Roberts v. State, 678 So.2d 1232 (Fla.1996); Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 916 (Fla.1991); Brantley v. State, 912 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 So. 3d 426, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5782, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zelaya-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack