Thomas R. Lamb v. State
212 So. 3d 1108
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Thomas R. Lamb was convicted (jury) of sexual activity with a child (two counts) and lewd or lascivious molestation; convictions and sentences became final in 2010 after direct appeal affirmed.
- Lamb filed a timely first Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 postconviction motion; after an evidentiary hearing the court denied relief and this court affirmed in 2015.
- Lamb then filed a pro se second (successive) rule 3.850 motion (later amended) asserting eight new grounds, claiming they were newly discovered after the 2014 evidentiary hearing and that he is not held to attorney standards.
- The postconviction court summarily dismissed the second motion as time-barred under rule 3.850(b) because it was filed more than two years after final judgment; the court did not analyze the rule 3.850(b)(1) newly-discovered-facts exception.
- This appeal challenges the summary dismissal and argues the motion invoked the newly discovered evidence exception; the Fifth DCA agrees the lower court erred procedurally in not addressing the (b)(1) exception but affirms on other grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lamb) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b) | Motion timely because claims are based on newly discovered facts discovered at 2014 hearing and filed within two years of that discovery | Motion untimely because judgment became final in 2010 and second motion filed after two-year limit | Affirmed dismissal as time-barred; court finds newly discovered exception inapplicable to the asserted facts (affirmance under "tipsy coachman" grounds) |
| Whether alleged facts qualify as "newly discovered" evidence | Facts (witness residence, prior convictions, incarceration dates, restraining order) are newly discovered at the 2014 hearing | Many of these facts were known or discoverable earlier (some were testified to at pretrial/trial or personally known to Lamb) | Denied newly discovered status for grounds 1–3; those claims required timely filing and are untimely |
| Whether allegations required an evidentiary hearing | Lamb: factual claims should be accepted as true and warrant an evidentiary hearing | State: many alleged facts are not newly discovered or are not evidentiary (conclusions, counsel failures) | No evidentiary hearing required because either the record refutes claims or allegations are not newly discovered evidence or are conclusory |
| Whether alleged facts constitute "evidence" under rule 3.850(b)(1) | Lamb treats counsel conduct/failure to object and file-handling as factual basis for exception | State: counsel errors, failure to object, and readiness are not "newly discovered evidence" proving innocence | Court: non-evidentiary allegations (e.g., counsel failures, objections not made) do not satisfy the (b)(1) exception; such claims fail to invoke extended time period |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. State, 73 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2011) (evidentiary hearing required unless motion and record conclusively show no entitlement to relief)
- Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1999) (when no hearing held, factual allegations must be accepted as true unless refuted by record)
- Coppola v. State, 938 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2006) (rule 3.850(b)(1) "fact" means newly discovered evidence tending to prove or disprove guilt)
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991) (newly discovered evidence must be of a nature that would probably produce an acquittal on retrial)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007) (conclusory ineffective-assistance allegations are insufficient for relief)
- Foss v. State, 24 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 2009) (affirmance under "tipsy coachman" doctrine where appellate court reaches correct result on different ground)