Melendez v. State

59 Citing cases

  1. Rogers v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

    CASE NO. 8:07-CV-1365-T-30TGW (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2010)   Cited 1 times
    Denying federal habeas relief

    In order to provide relief on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the asserted facts must have been: (1) unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known them by the use of diligence; and (2) the newly discovered evidence must be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. See Melendez v. State, 718 So. 2d 746, 747 (Fla. 1998); Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1997); Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla. 1991). In reviewing the trial court's application of the newly discovered evidence rule, this Court applies the following standard of review:

  2. Swafford v. State

    828 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2002)   Cited 10 times
    Affirming the trial court's denial of his third motion for postconviction relief

    Steinhorst, 695 So.2d at 1248. Also applicable is our statement inMelendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1998): First, to qualify as newly discovered evidence, "the asserted facts must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear thatdefendant or his counsel could not have known them by the use of diligence."

  3. Hitchcock v. State

    991 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2008)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that the Caldwell claim is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal but was not

    When the trial court rules on a newly discovered evidence claim after an evidentiary hearing, we accept the trial court's findings on questions of fact, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence if based upon competent, substantial evidence. Melendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746, 747-48 (Fla. 1998); Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 1997). As with rulings on other postconviction claims, we review de novo the trial court's application of the law to the facts.

  4. State v. Larzelere

    979 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2008)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that where Larzelere claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a concrete expert, defendant failed to prove prejudice because she failed to show what a concrete expert would have testified to or how testimony would have "cast doubt on her guilt"

    Larzelere's claim is without merit because each of her arguments is either without merit or procedurally barred. See Melendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746, 749 (Fla. 1998) (holding that where claims were either meritless or procedurally barred, there was no cumulative effect to consider). This Court found on direct appeal that the trial judge "met the burden of assuring that appellant's [pretrial] waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently," and that he properly denied Larzelere's post-trial motions to discharge counsel because she failed to show how she would be prejudiced by counsel's continued dual representation of Larzelere and Jason.

  5. State v. Larzelere

    Nos. SC05-611, SC06-148 (Fla. Mar. 6, 2008)

    Larzelere's claim is without merit because each of her arguments is either without merit or procedurally barred. See Melendez v. State, 718 So. 2d 746, 749 (Fla. 1998) (holding that where claims were either meritless or procedurally barred, there was no cumulative effect to consider). This Court found on direct appeal that the trial judge "met the burden of assuring that appellant's [pretrial] waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently," and that he properly denied Larzelere's post-trial motions to discharge counsel because she failed to show how she would be prejudiced by counsel's continued dual representation of Larzelere and Jason.

  6. Green v. State

    975 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2008)   Cited 113 times
    Holding that issues were procedurally barred because they should have been, but were not, raised on direct appeal

    When the trial court rules on a newly discovered evidence claim after an evidentiary hearing, we review the trial court's findings on questions of fact, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence for competent, substantial evidence. Melendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746, 747-48 (Fla. 1998); Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1997). As with rulings on other postconviction claims, we review the trial court's application of the law to the facts de novo.

  7. Riechmann v. State

    966 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2007)   Cited 34 times
    Finding that "when a claim is raised in a successive motion, the movant has the additional burden of demonstrating why the claim was not raised before"

    When the trial court rules on a newly discovered evidence claim after an evidentiary hearing, we review the trial court's findings on questions of fact, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence for competent, substantial evidence. Melendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746, 747-48 (Fla. 1998); Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1997). As with rulings on other postconviction claims, we review the trial court's application of the law to the facts de novo.

  8. Green v. State

    Nos. SC05-2265, SC06-1533 (Fla. Oct. 11, 2007)   Cited 1 times

    When the trial court rules on a newly discovered evidence claim after an evidentiary hearing, we review the trial court's findings on questions of fact, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence for competent, substantial evidence. Melendez v. State, 718 So. 2d 746, 747-48 (Fla. 1998); Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1997). As with rulings on other postconviction claims, we review the trial court's application of the law to the facts de novo.

  9. Riechmann v. State

    Case No. SC03-760 (Fla. Sep. 20, 2007)

    When the trial court rules on a newly discovered evidence claim after an evidentiary hearing, we review the trial court's findings on questions of fact, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence for competent, substantial evidence. Melendez v. State, 718 So. 2d 746, 747-48 (Fla. 1998); Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1997). As with rulings on other postconviction claims, we review the trial court's application of the law to the facts de novo.

  10. Melton v. State

    949 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2007)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding that the trial court's brief reference to lack of remorse in order denying postconviction relief was harmless error in light of the detailed and lengthy discussion on the mitigators and aggravators

    The trial court initially concluded that a jury would not have found these newly found witnesses credible since Melton himself testified that he was the shooter. Furthermore, the trial court, citing to Melendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1998), questioned the overall credibility of these witnesses and noted that their versions of events were not even consistent with one another. In Melendez, this Court supported a trial court's dismissal of a newly discovered evidence claim based on the new testimony of five individuals.