Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
McLin v. State
Citations: 949 So. 2d 1123; 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2361; 2007 WL 518590Docket: No. 3D05-39
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 20, 2007; Florida; State Appellate Court
The appeal concerns the denial of a motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing concerning newly discovered evidence based on the recanted testimony of a witness, Jose Saldana. The Florida Supreme Court had previously remanded the case, affirming that McLin was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. During the hearing, conducted by a successor judge, testimony was heard from Saldana and Detective Bogen, alongside a review of prior transcripts related to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court found Saldana's testimony not credible and issued a written order denying relief. The appellate court upheld the trial court's credibility determinations and factual findings, emphasizing deference to the trial court as long as its findings were supported by competent substantial evidence. The defendant contended that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard, arguing it should have assessed the probable impact of the newly discovered evidence on the jury without making credibility determinations. However, the appellate court affirmed that under Florida law, particularly following the Supreme Court's ruling, recantations are treated with suspicion, and a new trial is warranted only if the recantation is credible and could likely alter the verdict. The defendant's reliance on previous cases was deemed misplaced, as they did not involve recantation testimony. Ultimately, the order denying McLin's motion for postconviction relief was affirmed, with the court noting Saldana's prior cooperation with the State against McLin, highlighting the inconsistency in his later affidavit which alleged a scheme to frame the defendant.