Patrick Placide v. State of Florida
189 So. 3d 810
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Placide was convicted by jury in 1992 of first-degree murder, attempted murder, robbery, and burglary; sentences affirmed on appeal in 1995.
- The two-year rule 3.850 deadline expired in 1997; Placide filed multiple prior postconviction motions and appeals.
- In April 2014 Placide filed a successive, untimely rule 3.850 motion alleging juror misconduct based on a 2014 affidavit from family friend Marie Blackwell describing a 1992 hallway conversation where jurors commented on Placide being shackled.
- Blackwell claimed she told jurors he was innocent but did not report the conversation until 2013 because she did not know such juror discussion was improper and feared trouble; the affidavit was notarized but used qualifying language and did not state penalties of perjury.
- The trial court denied the motion as untimely and insufficient; the Fourth District affirmed, finding the affidavit inherently incredible, not properly sworn, and that Placide failed to show due diligence to qualify for the newly-discovered-facts exception to the time bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence exception saves untimely 3.850 motion | Blackwell's affidavit is newly discovered evidence of juror misconduct about shackling, justifying relief | Affidavit is unreliable and untimely; exception not met because evidence could have been discovered earlier with diligence | Denied — exception not satisfied; motion untimely |
| Sufficiency and credibility of Blackwell's affidavit | Affidavit recounts juror statements showing prejudice from shackling | Affidavit is inherently incredible due to extreme delay and implausible explanations for nondisclosure | Denied — affidavit found inherently incredible |
| Whether affidavit was properly sworn/verified under Florida law | Affidavit notarized and attached to motion | Affidavit used qualifying language, omitted statutory "under penalty of perjury" language, and not sworn before an authorized officer as required | Denied — affidavit insufficiently verified |
| Whether Placide exercised due diligence to discover the alleged juror discussion | Learned of the affidavit in 2013 and raised claim promptly | Placide made no showing of any prior diligence over 20 years and previously litigated shackling issues in 2005 | Denied — no due diligence shown; claim could have been discovered earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002) (affidavit may be "inherently incredible" on its face)
- Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (discussing inherently incredible affidavits)
- Andrews v. State, 919 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (same)
- State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993) (qualifying language in affidavit insufficient)
- Youngker v. State, 215 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) (affidavit requires oath administered by authorized person)
- State v. Johnston, 553 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (definition and requirements of an oath)
- Crain v. State, 914 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (affidavit must be sworn before authorized person)
- Jackson v. State, 881 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (acknowledging affidavit verification requirements)