Case ID: so2d_659/html/0723-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael O’Neal MORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 94-1245.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Sept. 5, 1995.
    K. Jeffrey Reynolds, Pensacola, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Douglas Gurnic, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for new trial. We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the trial court failed to address the alleged grounds pursuant to rule 3.600(a)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. On remand, the trial court should determine whether appellant established that he discovered new and material evidence, to wit: evidence supporting a defense of mental incapacity, which, if introduced at the trial would probably have changed the verdict, and which the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial. Rule 3.600(a)(3), Fla. R.Crim.P.

BOOTH, MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.