Stallworth v. State, 21 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Stallworth v. State, 21 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Ross (idahoctapp, 2021-04-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Ross
Idaho Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 1986); Stallworth v. State, 21 So. 3d 84, 86 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Octavius Ware v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
With post-conviction claims of newly discovered evidence, defendants may receive a new VOP hearing on the basis of newly discovered evidence by demonstrating, first, the existence of “new” evidence unknown and unknowable at the time of the first hearing; and, second, that the evidence would “probably produce a different result.” Stallworth v. State, 21 So.3d 84, 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Douglas v. State, 43 So.3d 196, 198-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wimberly v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Simpson v. State, 100 So.3d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Stallworth v. State, 21 So.3d 84, 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Hall v. State, 855 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
discussed Cited "see" Marino v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stallworth v. State, 21 So.3d 84, 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that "[rjecantation evidence is considered to be a type of newly discovered evidence”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Douglas v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Stallworth v. State, 21 So.3d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that defendant should receive an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction claim that his wife’s recantation at trial of testimony she had given at the VOP hearing was newly discovered evidence); Hall v. State, 855 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (granting postcon-viction relief and reversing and remanding for a new VOP hearing where a police officer, subsequent to the VOP hearing, gave inconsistent deposition testimony which suggested that VOP was improper).
Michael STALLWORTH, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
1D09-3182.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct 14, 2009.
21 So. 3d 84
Michael Stallworth, pro se, Appellant., Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Jennifer J. Moore, and Ian M. Cotner, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appel-lee.
Webster, Davis, Padovano.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 seeking postconviction relief. Because we conclude that appellant’s allegations warrant an evidentiary hearing, we reverse.

Appellant alleges that the court found he violated probation by committing the new offense of battery on his wife. He alleges, further, that following the probation violation hearing, his wife recanted her testimony. He also alleges that, at the trial on the battery charge which occurred after his probation violation hearing, his wife testified that any physical contact by appellant was in self-defense; that she admitted lying to the police in her sworn statement and under oath at the probation violation hearing; and that the trial court granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal in the battery case. Appellant asserts that, because of his wife’s recantation of her testimony at the probation revocation hearing, the determination that he had violated probation should be reversed.

[*86] A defendant may be found to have violated probation even though the criminal case based on the same conduct resulted in acquittal. See Morris v. State, 727 So.2d 975, 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). However, here, appellant is specifically alleging that he has newly discovered evidence in the form of a recantation that should change the outcome of his probation violation proceeding.

Recantation evidence is considered to be a type of newly discovered evidence. See Murrah v. State, 773 So.2d 622, 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Newly discovered evidence must be such that the appellant, his counsel or the trial court could not have discovered the facts at the time of trial through the exercise of due diligence, and must be such that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. See Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998). These determinations require an evidentiary hearing unless the recantation is inherently incredible or immaterial to the verdict. See Stephens v. State, 829 So.2d 945, 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In this case, the victim’s testimony found in the trial transcript for appellant’s battery charge clearly constitutes a recantation of her testimony at appellant’s probation violation hearing. Therefore, appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the recantation would probably produce a different result in the probation revocation proceeding. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.