Mungin v. State

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court reviews Anthony Mungin’s successive motion for postconviction relief based on an affidavit from George Brown that allegedly impeached the testimony of the prosecution’s key identification witness. The court holds that the Brady and Giglio claims require an evidentiary hearing, while the newly discovered evidence claim is denied. The case concerns alleged suppression of favorable impeachment evidence and the alleged presentation of false testimony in a capital murder prosecution.

Holdings

1. A successive postconviction motion alleging that the State suppressed favorable evidence is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the motion's allegations, if accepted as true, raise a material factual dispute and the record does not conclusively establish that the evidence was immaterial. Brown's affidavit materially contradicted Kirkland's testimony and the alleged police-report falsity, so the Brady claim could not be summarily denied.
2. A successive postconviction motion alleging that the State presented or failed to correct material false testimony is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the record does not conclusively establish that the alleged evidence could not have affected the verdict. Mungin's Giglio claim therefore could not be summarily denied.
3. Brown's affidavit did not satisfy the newly discovered evidence standard because, even considering the new evidence together with the evidence presented at trial, it was not of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
4. Mungin's challenge to Florida's lethal-injection procedures was denied because he provided no additional factual allegations warranting reconsideration of the court's prior decisions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the record conclusively refuted Mungin's claim that the State violated Brady by suppressing favorable impeachment evidence concerning Brown.
2. Whether the record conclusively refuted Mungin's claim that the State violated Giglio by presenting or failing to correct material false testimony concerning Kirkland's presence at the crime scene.
3. Whether Brown's affidavit constituted newly discovered evidence that would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
4. Whether Mungin's separate challenge to Florida's lethal-injection procedures was sufficiently pleaded to warrant relief.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded