Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Daniel A. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
AFFIRMED. See Hough v. State, 679 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
I would reverse the trial court's summary denial of Appellant's newly discovered evidence claim. In similar situations, we have held that claims of newly discovered evidence “generally require an evidentiary hearing to allow the court to test the credibility of the newly discovered evidence ‘unless the affidavit is inherently incredible or obviously immaterial to the verdict and the sentence.’ ” Grays v. State, 246 So. 3d 520, 521 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (quoting Nordelo v. State, 93 So. 3d 178, 185 (Fla. 2012)).
Appellant was convicted of carjacking with a firearm and was sentenced in March 1998 to life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender. The State's evidence at trial identifying Appellant as the perpetrator consisted solely of the testimony of the two victims.
Appellant's motion alleging newly discovered evidence below included an affidavit from a cousin of one victim. The affiant swore under oath that he committed the carjacking and that his cousin (one of the victims) admitted to the affiant that she identified Appellant as the perpetrator in order to protect her family. Thus, the affiant not only confessed to the crime and alleged that Appellant was not involved, but also provided grounds for impeaching one of the two victims of the carjacking.1
Notably, our record indicates that rims from the stolen car were discovered in the possession of a person with the affiant's last name. Based on Appellant's allegations and the affidavit, I conclude that this case is distinguishable from Hough v. State, 679 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and that Grays v. State, 246 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) applies. I would therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the trial court to attach records that conclusively refute Appellant's claim.
FOOTNOTES
1. As to the second victim, our record indicates that he did not identify Appellant until months later after seeing Appellant in court on other matters.
PER CURIAM.
WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur. EISNAUGLE, J., dissents with opinion.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Case No. 5D18-3367
Decided: November 08, 2019
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)