Background
Carlos Jennis appealed from the Circuit Court for Highlands County, where Judge David V. Ward denied postconviction relief in a criminal case originating in 1998. Jennis proceeded pro se under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2).
The appellate opinion does not describe Jennis’s underlying conviction, the evidence he presented, or the details of his postconviction claim. Its citations indicate that the appeal involved the newly discovered evidence exception to the two-year filing limit in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1).
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s ruling in a per curiam opinion. The court cited Florida Supreme Court precedent requiring newly discovered evidence to be evidence that tends to prove or disprove guilt or innocence and that would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
The court also cited authority holding that an untimely Rule 3.850 motion cannot rely on information that was previously discoverable through due diligence. Its citation to Gadson v. State further reflects the rule that the predicate fact must have been unknown to both the defendant and defense counsel, although the opinion does not expressly identify which cited principle was dispositive in Jennis’s case.
Key Takeaways
- The Sixth District affirmed the denial of Jennis’s postconviction claim.
- Newly discovered evidence under Rule 3.850(b)(1) must bear on guilt or innocence and probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
- Information previously ascertainable through due diligence does not support the rule’s exception to the two-year filing deadline.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the demanding requirements for pursuing an otherwise untimely postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence. A movant must show more than recently learning information: the evidence must have been unavailable through due diligence and must be sufficiently consequential to the question of guilt.
Because the court issued a citation-only affirmance without discussing Jennis’s specific allegations, the opinion provides limited guidance about how those standards applied to his particular claim.