Steinhorst v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the denial of Walter Gale Steinhorst's second motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Steinhorst argued that the prior post-conviction proceeding was invalid because the judge had previously represented the estate of a murder victim and had recused himself from a codefendant's case. The majority held that competent substantial evidence supported the finding that the recusal information could have been discovered through due diligence, while dissenting justices argued that the conflict created a nonwaivable due process violation.

Holdings

1. When the evidence supports two conflicting theories, the appellate court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing theory and will not alter the trial court's factual findings if competent, substantial evidence supports them.
2. Information concerning Judge Turner's conflict and recusal did not qualify as newly discovered evidence sufficient to require a new Rule 3.850 hearing because it could have been ascertained through the exercise of due diligence.
3. The trial court did not err in denying Steinhorst's second Rule 3.850 motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that Judge Turner's recusal order was present in the court files during the 1986 review.
2. Whether competent, substantial evidence supported the finding that Steinhorst's counsel failed to exercise due diligence before the applicable Rule 3.850 time limit.
3. Whether the undisclosed judicial conflict constituted newly discovered evidence sufficient to overcome procedural waiver and require a new Rule 3.850 hearing.

Disposition

affirmed