second evidentiary hearing in Florida

2016Id.; see also Jones II, 709 So.2d at 522 (“Because this appeal involves a second evidentiary hearing in which claims of newly discovered evidence were presented and evaluated by a trial judge, we must evaluate all the admissible newly discovered evidence at this hearing in conjunction with newly discovered evidence at the pri- or evidentiary hearing and then compare it with the evidence that was introduced at trial.”); Swafford v. State, 125 So.3d 760, 775-76 (Fla.2013) (“The Jones standard requires that, in considering the effect of the newly discovered evidence, we consider all of the admiss

2001See Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512, 522 (Fla. 1998) ("Because this appeal involves a second evidentiary hearing in which claims of newly discovered evidence were presented and evaluated by a trial judge, we must evaluate all the admissible newly discovered evidence at this hearing in conjunction with newly discovered evidence at the prior evidentiary hearing and then compare it with the evidence that was introduced at trial."); accord Lightbourne v. State, 742 So.2d 238, 247-48 (Fla.1999).

2023Cf. Gonzalez v. State, 59 So. 3d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (remanding for a second evidentiary hearing where it had already been determined that the trial court’s record attachments did not conclusively refute the defendant’s postconviction claim, and the first evidentiary hearing did not adequately resolve that claim).

2021“Due process in Bar disciplinary proceedings requires that an accused attorney be given a full opportunity to explain the circumstances of an alleged offense and to offer testimony in mitigation regarding any possible sanction.” Fla. Bar v. Baker, 810 So. 2d 876, 879 (Fla. 2002).

2016In determining the impact of the newly discovered evidence, the Court must conduct a cumulative analysis of all the evidence so that there is a ‘total picture’ of the case and ‘all the circumstances of the case.’” (quoting Armstrong v. State, 642 So.2d 730, 735 (Fla.1994))).

2016Id.; see also Jones II, 709 So.2d at 522 (“Because this appeal involves a second evidentiary hearing in which claims of newly discovered evidence were presented and evaluated by a trial judge, we must evaluate all the admissible newly discovered evidence at this hearing in conjunction with newly discovered evidence at the pri- or evidentiary hearing and then compare it with the evidence that was introduced at trial.”); Swafford v. State, 125 So.3d 760, 775-76 (Fla.2013) (“The Jones standard requires that, in considering the effect of the newly discovered evidence, we consider all of the admiss

2013See Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla.1999) (“To uphold the [postconviction] court’s summary denial of claims raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.”); Tapp v. State, 44 So.3d 666, 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing summary denial of claim made in rule 3.850 motion and remanding for postconviction court to either attach records refuting claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing).

2013See Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla.1999) (“To uphold the [postconviction] court’s summary denial of claims raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.”); Tapp v. State, 44 So.3d 666, 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing summary denial of claim made in rule 3.850 motion and remanding for postconviction court to either attach records refuting claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing).

2008See Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)(holding the appellant has the burden of providing a proper record to the reviewing court).

2001See Kranz v. Kranz, 737 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Warner (holding that remand for specific fact findings to support a fee award is not appropriate where the wife failed to put on any evidence to support the fee award in the first instance); see also Davis v. Davis, 613 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). *989 Therefore, upon remand, if sufficient evidence was presented in the trial proceedings, the trial court may make the findings required by Rowe and award a reasonable fee.

2001See Kranz v. Kranz, 737 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Warner (holding that remand for specific fact findings to support a fee award is not appropriate where the wife failed to put on any evidence to support the fee award in the first instance); see also Davis v. Davis, 613 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). *989 Therefore, upon remand, if sufficient evidence was presented in the trial proceedings, the trial court may make the findings required by Rowe and award a reasonable fee.

2001See Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512, 522 (Fla. 1998) ("Because this appeal involves a second evidentiary hearing in which claims of newly discovered evidence were presented and evaluated by a trial judge, we must evaluate all the admissible newly discovered evidence at this hearing in conjunction with newly discovered evidence at the prior evidentiary hearing and then compare it with the evidence that was introduced at trial."); accord Lightbourne v. State, 742 So.2d 238, 247-48 (Fla.1999).

1995Kleinfeld v. State, 568 So.2d 937, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So.2d 167 (Fla.1991). .

1992See Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Abrahantes, 559 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); and Buchanan v. Golden Hills Turf & Country Club, Inc., 308 So.2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).