191 So. 3d 454
Fla.2016Background
- Anthony Farina was convicted in 1992 of first‑degree murder and related offenses; his death sentence was vacated twice and remanded for new penalty proceedings while his convictions and life sentences remained intact.
- The Eleventh Circuit later set aside his death sentence based on prosecutorial misconduct at penalty phase and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; resentencing was pending when the events below occurred.
- On May 11, 2015 (364 days after counsel received an anonymous letter), Farina filed a successive Rule 3.851 motion alleging newly discovered evidence that two jurors were biased because of undisclosed connections between their acquaintance/employer and the elected State Attorney who prosecuted the 1992 trial.
- The trial court dismissed the motion as premature because Farina’s conviction was not "final for purposes of filing a successive postconviction motion" while resentencing was pending, and granted leave to amend after resentencing.
- The Florida Supreme Court held the dismissal was error: motions alleging newly discovered evidence that could warrant a new trial should be filed and adjudicated as soon as possible (consistent with the one‑year due‑diligence rule) and need not await resentencing; the Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to reinstate and address the motion on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / appealability of trial court order | Farina treated the dismissal as final and sought review under Fla. R. App. P. 9.142(c) | Trial court dismissed without prejudice and gave leave to amend after resentencing, so order is nonfinal and not immediately appealable | Court treated petition as appealable under its death‑penalty jurisdiction and proceeded; majority assumed reviewable because death sentence had been vacated but case implicates capital proceedings |
| Prematurity dismissal (should court wait until resentencing?) | Motion filed within one year of discovery; newly discovered evidence claims should be heard promptly and not delayed until resentencing | Trial court: successive 3.851 motion improper while resentencing pending; rule 3.851 applies only after death sentence affirmed and final | Majority: dismissal as premature was error; motions based on newly discovered evidence should be brought ASAP and not postponed until after resentencing |
| Timeliness / due diligence standard | Counsel discovered the anonymous letter <1 year earlier and could not have learned the facts earlier through due diligence | State/concurring view: rule 3.851 timing framework requires defendant be under sentence of death for 3.851 to apply; Way decisions do not compel pre‑resentencing adjudication | Majority: consistent with Glock and Jones, newly discovered‑evidence claims are subject to strict time limits and may be filed prior to resentencing; Farina filed within 1 year so timely |
| Sufficiency of allegations re: juror bias (McDonough standard) | The anonymous letter plus records showing employer donations demonstrates juror nondisclosure and possible bias warranting new trial or hearing | Dissent: allegations fail McDonough — no showing jurors knew of donations, no allegation they answered dishonestly to a material question, and claims are speculative | Majority remanded for merits consideration (expressly declined to decide merits); dissent would have affirmed dismissal as insufficient and nonfinal |
Key Cases Cited
- Glock v. Moore, 776 So.2d 243 (Fla. 2001) (newly discovered evidence in death cases must be filed within one year of discovery or when it could have been discovered through due diligence)
- Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (two‑prong standard for newly discovered evidence: unknown at trial despite diligence; likely to produce acquittal on retrial)
- Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903 (Fla. 2000) (discussing adjudication of postconviction claims filed prior to resentencing in capital cases)
- Way v. Dugger, 568 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 1990) (Brady/newly discovered evidence claims and postconviction practice surrounding resentencing)
- Long v. State, 183 So.3d 342 (Fla. 2016) (reiterating diligence/time‑limit rules for newly discovered evidence)
- Torres‑Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So.2d 1321 (Fla. 1994) (defining newly discovered evidence as unknown at trial and not discoverable by due diligence)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1984) (when post‑trial juror bias is alleged, defendant must show juror answered voir dire dishonestly and truthful answer would have supported a challenge for cause)
- State v. Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, 697 So.2d 70 (Fla. 1997) (Florida Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over collateral proceedings in death penalty cases)