Rivera v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the summary denial of Michael Rivera’s successive motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court affirmed the denial of Rivera’s judicial-bias claim but remanded for evidentiary hearings concerning alleged Giglio and Brady violations and newly discovered DNA evidence. The court also affirmed the denial of Rivera’s request to supplement his motion for rehearing, without prejudice to presenting relevant federal-proceeding evidence at the remand hearing.

Holdings

1. A successive postconviction claim is not conclusively procedurally barred when the movant alleges that the supporting information was not known and could not have been known during prior postconviction proceedings, and the record does not refute those allegations. In that circumstance, the movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively establishes entitlement to no relief.
2. Rivera's allegations concerning alleged false or misleading testimony by Zuccarello and the State's alleged suppression of favorable evidence were sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing because the record did not conclusively refute the alleged Giglio or Brady violations.
3. Rivera was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on whether DNA testing showing that hairs found in a van did not come from the victim and that hairs found with the victim did not come from Rivera constituted newly discovered evidence that would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or deny due process by refusing to permit Rivera to supplement a motion for rehearing after postconviction relief had already been denied, although Rivera remained free to present relevant evidence from the federal proceedings at the evidentiary hearing on remand.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rivera's judicial-bias claim was procedurally barred or legally insufficient.
2. Whether Rivera was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his successive Giglio claim based on alleged false testimony and undisclosed benefits provided to informant Frank Zuccarello.
3. Whether Rivera was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his successive Brady claim based on alleged suppression of favorable impeachment and exculpatory evidence concerning Zuccarello and law-enforcement conduct.
4. Whether recently obtained DNA testing constituted newly discovered evidence warranting an evidentiary hearing on whether it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
5. Whether the trial court denied due process by refusing to allow Rivera to supplement his rehearing motion with information from a federal evidentiary hearing involving Zuccarello.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded