93 So. 3d 178
Fla.2012Background
- Nordelo was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life; codefendant pled to 25 years.
- Nordelo filed a Rule 3.850 motion for new trial with a Lopez affidavit claiming Nordelo was not involved and another perpetrator existed.
- The circuit court summarily denied an evidentiary hearing, finding the Lopez affidavit not newly discovered and the prosecutorial-misconduct claim time-barred as successive.
- The Third District affirmed the denial as legally insufficient, but purportedly relied on facts outside the record to refute the motion.
- This Court held the district misapplied precedent by treating the motion as conclusively refuted without accepting the movant’s factual allegations.
- The Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to the Lopez affidavit and the newly discovered-evidence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the district court's ruling a misapplication of 3.850 standards? | Nordelo argues lower courts failed to accept the motion’s factual allegations as true. | Nordelo contends the affidavit was not newly discovered and was refuted by the record. | Yes; district misapplied the standards. |
| Does Lopez’s affidavit constitute newly discovered evidence requiring an evidentiary hearing? | Affidavit shows exculpatory testimony not previously available. | Affidavit was known or easily discoverable; credibility issues render it insufficient. | Requires an evidentiary hearing; not conclusively refuted. |
| Did due diligence and potential credibility affect the facial sufficiency analysis? | Due diligence supports learning of exculpatory testimony; motion facially sufficient. | Due diligence not shown; affidavit inherently incredible. | Facial sufficiency must be evaluated before considering the record; hearing warranted. |
| Should the matter be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on all newly discovered evidence? | Hearing is necessary to test credibility and impact of Lopez affidavit. | No need for further hearing if evidence is not credible or likely to change outcome. | Remand for evidentiary hearing on Lopez-related claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1991) (newly discovered evidence and need for evidentiary hearing; weigh weight of evidence)
- Steinhorst v. State, 498 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1986) (tests sufficiency of allegations and need to examine record)
- Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2007) (facial sufficiency vs. refutation by record; separation of tasks)
- Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253 (Fla. 1999) (accept allegations if not refuted; distinguish facial sufficiency)
- Jones II, 709 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1998) (due diligence and weight of newly discovered evidence; evidentiary testing)
- Davis v. State, 26 So.3d 519 (Fla. 2009) (heightened due-diligence standard at evidentiary stage; credibility)
- Ragsdale v. State, 720 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1998) (summary denial when not legally sufficient or not proven)
- Arbelaez v. State, 775 So.2d 909 (Fla. 2000) (establishes when new evidence could render judgment vulnerable)