Court Filings

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's denial of Dearek Randy Williams's motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea to trafficking in fentanyl. Williams argued his plea was involuntary because trial counsel misadvised him that he could later appeal and "be out," which induced him to accept a mandatory 15-year sentence. The appellate court held that affirmative misadvice of counsel can create a manifest injustice rendering a plea involuntary, cited controlling precedent, and remanded the case for further proceedings on Williams's withdrawal motion.

The Florida Supreme Court reversed a circuit court order that denied death-row inmate James Aren Duckett access to the underlying DNA testing data from a private laboratory. Duckett had obtained a court-ordered DNA test of a 1987 swab but sought the raw data so a qualified bioinformaticist could perform further statistical analysis (SNP/Y-SNP data). The Court held the statute and rule permitting postconviction DNA testing require production of the underlying data once testing is ordered and completed. The Court affirmed denial of Duckett’s public-records requests for the lab’s testing process and protocols and remanded for provision of the underlying data, with an evidentiary hearing if disputes over scope arise.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court order that summarily denied Traves Malcolm’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion claiming newly discovered evidence (a previously unknown 20-year plea offer). The appellate court agreed the motion was facially deficient because it lacked a proper oath and did not include an affidavit from trial counsel as required by rule 3.850(c)(7) (or explain why one could not be obtained). Because the trial court denied the motion without giving Malcolm an opportunity to amend those defects, the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a misdemeanor information charging Christine Heidi Scott with resisting or obstructing officers without violence. The trial court had required ever-more specific allegations about the exact legal duties the deputies were performing and dismissed the second amended information as vague. The appellate court held the original information was legally sufficient because it tracked the statute, gave date and place, and provided adequate notice; any further detail was a matter for proof or for a statement of particulars, not a required element of the charging document.