Perez v. State
118 So. 3d 298
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In 1999, 17‑year‑old Michael Perez confessed to and was arrested for the fatal shooting of Jimmy Ramirez; one eyewitness (Carlos Hernandez) corroborated the confession. Perez was later found competent and pled guilty to second‑degree murder and related firearm charges; he was sentenced to 40 years.
- In 2009 Perez filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1) motion nearly nine years after his plea, claiming newly discovered evidence and manifest injustice.
- Perez submitted affidavits from Javier Delarosa and Albert Montanez asserting Ramirez was killed in a drive‑by by a gang leader known as “Fat Steve,” not Perez; Montanez described threats that deterred contemporaneous reporting. Perez also attested he was threatened and saw Fat Steve commit the shooting.
- The trial court summarily denied the motion, reasoning the affidavits only corroborated Perez’s existing claim of innocence and did not establish manifest injustice.
- On appeal, the Third District held the record did not conclusively refute Perez’s allegations and that the credibility of the new witnesses must be assessed at an evidentiary hearing. The court reversed and remanded for a hearing on manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Perez's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perez is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing based on newly discovered evidence / manifest injustice | New affidavits identify an alternative perpetrator and show threats prevented earlier disclosure; thus withdrawal is necessary to correct manifest injustice | The affidavits only corroborate Perez’s existing claim of innocence and do not qualify as newly discovered evidence or show manifest injustice; summary denial appropriate | Reversed: record does not conclusively refute Perez; credibility of new witnesses is central and requires an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether summary denial was proper without an evidentiary hearing when credibility of new testimony is at issue | Credibility disputes over newly offered eyewitness recantation/witnesses require live testimony | Summary denial proper because evidence merely reiterates Perez’s prior claim | Held: summary denial inappropriate; hearing required to evaluate credibility |
| Standard to assess newly discovered evidence/actual innocence in Florida context | Perez relies on Florida’s more liberal newly discovered evidence standard to show manifest injustice | State relies on high burden for post‑sentencing plea withdrawal | Court affirms Florida’s more permissive approach relative to federal actual‑innocence standard and requires hearing when credibility is contested |
| Applicability of earlier confession to defeat newly discovered testimonial evidence | Perez contends confession is rebutted by credible new witness testimony and threats explain late disclosure | State contends confession outweighs late affidavits and defeats claim | Held: Confession conflicts with new testimony; conflict cannot be resolved on paper — requires evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. State, 976 So.2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (appellate standard for summary denial of 3.850 motion)
- McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948 (Fla. 2002) (creditability of new evidence generally requires hearing)
- Whitsett v. State, 993 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (victim recantation required an evidentiary hearing where defendant pled under assumption victim would testify against him)
- Tompkins v. State, 994 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 2008) (explaining Florida standard for newly discovered evidence is more liberal than federal actual innocence standard)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (U.S. 2006) (federal standard for actual innocence requiring new, reliable evidence that likely would prevent a reasonable juror from convicting)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (federal actual‑innocence gateway standard)
- Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1975) (burden to show manifest injustice by clear proof of prejudice)