Summary
The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial of Anthony Spann’s successive motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. Spann relied on accomplice Lenard Philmore’s recantation as newly discovered evidence, but the court held that the trial court reasonably found the recantation not credible and insufficient to satisfy the applicable standard for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Philmore's recantation constituted newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial under the Jones test.
- Whether the trial court's finding that Philmore's recantation was untruthful and unreliable was supported by competent, substantial evidence.
- Whether Spann was entitled to postconviction relief based on the recantation and asserted actual innocence.
Holdings
- A defendant seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must show that the evidence was unknown at trial and could not have been discovered through due diligence, and that the evidence would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. When the claim rests on a prosecution witness's recantation, the defendant must first establish that the recantation is truthful.
- The appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court's on credibility and will affirm a recantation determination supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Key quotations
“First, the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence. Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” (815-16)
“Recantation by a witness called on behalf of the prosecution does not necessarily entitle a defendant to a new trial.” (816)
“Thus, in determining whether the record supports the trial court’s finding that the recantation was not credible, we give great deference to the trial judge’s observations concerning Philmore’s demeanor.” (825)
Factual background
Spann was convicted of participating in a 1997 crime spree that included robberies, a carjacking, and the murder of Kazue Perron, for which he received a death sentence. His accomplice, Lenard Philmore, was the State's primary witness and testified that Spann participated in the offenses. Years later, Philmore supplied an affidavit and testified at a postconviction hearing that Spann was not involved and that another person, Daryl Brooks, was his accomplice. The trial court rejected the recantation based on timeline inconsistencies, conflicts with other evidence, lack of corroboration, and Philmore's demeanor and credibility.
Procedural history
Spann was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. His initial Rule 3.851 postconviction motion was denied, and that denial was affirmed. After obtaining Philmore's recantation, Spann filed a successive Rule 3.851 motion; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found the recantation not credible, untruthful, and exceedingly unreliable, and denied relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed.