Burns v. State
| Citation | 110 So.3d 96 |
| Decision Date | 13 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D12–2845.,2D12–2845. |
| Parties | Kevin Lee BURNS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kevin Lee Burns challenges the summary denial of his postconviction motion for extraordinary relief. Because the motion presented claims involving allegedly newly discovered evidence, the postconviction court properly considered it pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. 1 However, because Burns failed to allege a facially sufficient claim, the postconviction court should have stricken the motion and allowed him an opportunity to amend.
A claim of newly discovered evidence must be filed within two years from the date the evidence could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1); see Bolender v. State, 658 So.2d 82, 85 (Fla.1995). Therefore, as a threshold requirement, Burns had to not only allege but also demonstrate that his motion was filed within two years from the date that the evidence could have been discovered. See Bolender, 658 So.2d at 85. Burns failed to make the required allegations. As the postconviction court found, Burns gave no indication when or how he discovered the evidence or why it could not have been discovered sooner. Furthermore, Burns failed to allege that withdrawal of the plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. See Bradford v. State, 869 So.2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (). Thus, Burns' claims were facially insufficient.
Based on this facial insufficiency, the postconviction court denied Burns' motion. However, when claims in a postconviction motion are facially insufficient, the postconviction court should strike them with leave to amend 2 within a reasonable time rather than denying the motion. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to strike Burns' newly discovered evidence claims and provide him with a reasonable time to amend them.
Reversed and remanded.
1. Burns filed his claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.140. However, his juvenile cases were transferred to circuit court, and he pleaded to an overall sentence as a youthful offender to six years'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tribbitt v. State
...that his motion was filed within two years from the date that the evidence could have been discovered." See, e.g. , Burns v. State , 110 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Mr. Tribbitt sufficiently alleged due diligence by claiming that he first learned of the plea offer from a third party t......
-
Tribbitt v. State
...diligence facts by attaching his mother's affidavit-in which she confirmed Mr. Tribbitt's allegations and timeline-to his motion. Cf. Burns, 110 So.3d at 97 (holding that rule 3.850 motion based on discovered evidence was facially insufficient where defendant "gave no indication when or how......
-
Blake v. State
...demonstrate that his motion was filed within two years from the date that the evidence could have been discovered.” Burns v. State, 110 So.3d 96, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). In his motion, Mr. Blake did not allege when or how he learned of the newly discovered facts. In that respect, his claims ......
-
Morgan v. State
...facts in support of his claim that the evidence is newly-discovered, the claim is facially insufficient. See Burns v. State , 110 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that the appellant's motion was facially insufficient where the appellant did not demonstrate "when or how he discovere......