DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ADALBERTO RAMOS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1924

[January 23, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 062008CF002567A88810.

Adalberto Ramos, Miami, pro se.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale 

Surber, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KUNTZ, J.

Adalberto Ramos raises seventeen points in his appeal of the circuit 

court’s denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion.1 We 

affirm, without comment, sixteen of the points. For the final issue, Ramos 

argues the court erred when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to 

evaluate his claim that a witness at trial recanted her testimony. We agree

and reverse.

The recanting witness, who is the victim’s older sister, stated in an

affidavit that she informed another sister that Ramos was “innocent.” The 

other sister also signed an affidavit affirming the conversation and stating 

that the recanting witness “said the detectives were [ ] telling her and 

putting fear into her that she was going to go to jail, if she didn’t testify.” 

The other sister also stated that the recanting witness started the 

conversation. 

1 We have issued two prior opinions in this case. See Ramos v. State, 178 So. 3d 

941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Ramos v. State, 75 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
2

The circuit court found that the claim was “legally sufficient” but 

refuted by the record. The court explained that the other sister did not 

testify at trial and did not influence the verdict. After reviewing the court 

file and the State’s response to Ramos’s motion, the court found the 

“equivocal statements contained in [the recanting witness’s] affidavit” were

“not credible.”

Florida courts view the recantation of testimony as “exceedingly 

unreliable.” Lambrix v. State, 39 So. 3d 260, 272 (Fla. 2010) (quoting 

Heath v. State, 3 So. 3d 1017, 1024 (Fla. 2009)). Because recantation is 

viewed with suspicion, when a State witness recants her testimony, a new 

trial is required “only if the court is satisfied that the recantation is true 

and that ‘the witness’s testimony will change to such an extent as to render 

probable a different verdict.’” Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93, 93 (Fla. 

4th DCA 1999) (quoting Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730, 735 (Fla. 

1994)).

In making this determination, an evidentiary hearing is usually 

required. Id. (citations omitted). And the court must “examine all the 

circumstances of the case, including the testimony of the witnesses 

submitted on the motion for the new trial.” Sweet v. State, 248 So. 3d 

1060, 1066 (Fla. 2018) (quoting Consalvo v. State, 937 So. 2d 555, 561 

(Fla. 2006)). But “[i]f a postconviction court ‘is not satisfied that the 

recanted testimony is true, it has a duty to deny the defendant a new trial.’” 

Id. (emphasis removed) (quoting Heath, 3 So. 3d at 1024).

Here, there was no physical evidence presented in the underlying trial

and the recanting witness was one of the main witnesses for the State. 

The jurors also asked questions during trial seeking medical evidence and 

asked the court to reread the witnesses’ testimony. 

Similar to Robinson, we are unable to conclude that the statements in 

the affidavits in support of Ramos’s motion were “inherently incredible or 

that [the] trial testimony was obviously immaterial to the verdict, so as to 

allow the trial court to reject [the] recantation without holding an 

evidentiary hearing.” 736 So. 2d at 93.

The court’s order denying Ramos’s motion is affirmed in part and 

reversed in part. We affirm without comment sixteen of the points raised 

on appeal, but we reverse and remand for the court to hold an evidentiary 

hearing on Ramos’s claim about the recanting witness.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
3

CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.