Opinion ID: 1107739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Governing Standards

Text: Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 governs the timeliness of, and necessity of an evidentiary hearing on, successive postconviction motions in final capital cases. Rule 3.851(d)(1) bars a postconviction motion filed more than one year after a judgment and sentence are final. An exception to this rule permits otherwise untimely motions if the movant alleges that the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant's attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.851(d)(2)(A). Rule 3.851(f)(5)(B) permits denial of a successive postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing [i]f the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief. This Court's precedent provides the criteria for obtaining a new capital penalty phase based on newly discovered evidence. In addition to demonstrating that the evidence could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence, the defendant must establish that the newly discovered evidence probably would have produced a life sentence. Ventura v. State, 794 So.2d 553, 571 (Fla. 2001); see also Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 915 (Fla.1991) ([T]he newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.); Scott v. Dugger, 604 So.2d 465, 468 (Fla.1992) (The Jones standard is also applicable where the issue is whether a life or death sentence should have been imposed.). Because the trial court denied Van Poyck's motion solely on the basis of the pleadings, making a legal rather than a factual determination, this Court evaluates each of these matters de novo. See State v. Coney, 845 So.2d 120, 137 (Fla.2003) (holding that pure questions of law that are discernible from the record are subject to de novo review).