Spann v. State, 91 So. 3d 812

Spann sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 after a death-sentence conviction for murder stemming from a 1997 crime spree.
His sole asserted claim was newly discovered evidence based on accomplice Lenard Philmore’s recantation of Spann’s involvement.
Philmore testified at trial that Spann participated in pawn shop robbery, carjacking, and murder; Spann was later convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.
Spann’s postconviction evidentiary hearing featured Philmore recanting trial testimony and alleging that a different accomplice, “Daryl Brooks,” was involved.
The trial court denied relief, finding Philmore’s recantation noncredible; Spann challenged that denial on appeal.
This Court affirmed, emphasizing deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and the criteria for newly discovered evidence in Jones II.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Philmore’s recantation satisfies Jones II as newly discovered evidence.	Spann asserting recantation could yield new trial.	State contends recantation is untruthful and unreliable.	Recantation failed second prong; no probable acquittal.
Whether the trial court’s credibility finding on Philmore is supported by competent substantial evidence.	Spann argues credibility undermined.	State argues credibility supported by demeanor and corroboration.	Yes; trial court’s credibility finding supported.
Whether the denial of postconviction relief was proper given the record and standard of review.	Spann maintains relief warranted by new evidence.	State asserts denial appropriate under Jones II standard.	affirmed; denial proper.

Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512 (Fla.1998), 709 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (defines two-prong Jones II test for newly discovered evidence)
Archer v. State, 934 So.2d 1187 (Fla.2006), 934 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 2006) (recantation credibility and perjury concerns in new-trial claims)
Armstrong v. State, 642 So.2d 730 (Fla.1994), 642 So.2d 730 (Fla. 1994) (principles for evaluating recantation as new evidence)
Lambrix v. State, 39 So.3d 260 (Fla.2010), 39 So.3d 260 (Fla. 2010) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Spaziano v. State, 692 So.2d 174 (Fla.1997), 692 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1997) (appellate review of trial-court credibility assessments)
Nixon v. State, 2 So.3d 137 (Fla.2009), 2 So.3d 137 (Fla. 2009) (reaffirmed deference to trial court’s findings on credibility)
Johnson v. Singletary, 647 So.2d 106 (Fla.1994), 647 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1994) (distinguishing postconviction relief posture where evidentiary hearing occurs)
Wyatt v. State, 71 So.3d 86 (Fla.2011), 71 So.3d 86 (Fla. 2011) (recantation may qualify as newly discovered evidence in some circumstances)
Davis v. State, 26 So.3d 519 (Fla.2009), 26 So.3d 519 (Fla. 2009) (recanted testimony requires credibility assessment for new-trial relief)