02-1498 PADILLA V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 02-1498 PADILLA V. STATE

Case Date: 12/24/2003

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003

SILVIO ANDRES PADILLA, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D02-1498 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 98-27465

Opinion filed December 24, 2003. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. and Valerie Jonas, J.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Ingrassia, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE, GODERICH and SHEPHERD, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Frank

Silvio Andres Padilla appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We remand for further proceedings.

The trial court denied the instant motion as being successive. We conclude that the court misapprehended the state of the record. It is true that defendant-appellant Padilla had filed a previous pro se motion entitled "Amendment Information Pro-Se (Motion)." Because this pro se motion was filed after conviction but prior to sentencing, it would be properly viewed either as a pro se motion for new trial or a premature motion for postconviction relief. See Daniels v. State, 712 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1998). Thus, we

respectfully disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the instant motion was impermissibly successive. for further proceedings. On remand, the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that the aunt of the victim, Urania Alvarado, was a witness whose testimony would have exculpated the defendant. The We therefore remand

defendant claims that he was at all times within the sight of Ms. Alvarado who would testify that the incident of sexual battery on the minor victim did not take place. We express no view on the

merits of this claim, but say only that the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on it. The defense concedes that the double jeopardy claims are without merit and need not be considered on remand. Regarding the defendant's remaining claims, the trial court may again deny the motion summarily if the record conclusively refutes the defendant's claims, or alternatively must conduct a hearing. 2003). 2 See Lasprilla v. State, 857 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA

Reversed herewith.

and

remanded

for

further

proceedings

consistent

3

Download 02-1498 PADILLA V. STATE.pdf