Court Opinion

ID: 9805880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 18:23:27.760479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:50:57.227649
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

ROBERTS, J.
The motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed September 17, 2014, is DENIED.
The opinion of the Court in this case and Judge Wolfs concurrence clearly point out that the victim’s letter is not a recantation in any way, shape, or form. The letter does not contradict the victim’s trial testimony, and it does not provide any information that would tend to rebut any of the elements of the convicted crime. It merely provides after-the-fact speculation concerning the Appellant’s possible motive for committing the theft of the firearms. A post hoc rationalization does not require an evidentiary hearing where there is no part of it that could be viewed as a recantation. Therefore, our decision is consistent with any existing precedent.
WOLF, J., concurs; MAKAR, J., dissents with opinion.