NORDELO v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) .... (b) Time Limitations. A motion to vacate a sentence that exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time. No other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final unless it alleges that (1) the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant’s attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, and the claim is made within 2 years of the time the new facts were or could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, or (2) .... (3) .... (d) Procedure; Evidentiary Hearing; Disposition. On filing of a rule 3.850 motion, the clerk shall forward the motion and file to the court. If the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief, the motion shall be denied without a hearing. In those instances when the denial is not predicated on the legal insufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order. ... If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, that the sentence imposed was not authorized bylaw or is otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the movant as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall v”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 So. 3d 178 - Nordelo v. State

2. “The Davis court explained that there is an important distinction between the requirements (a) to plead the existence of newly discovered evidence, versus (b) the heightened requirements to establish due diligence during an evidentiary hearing. The pleading requirement is lower; the proof requirement is higher. The Davis Court said: The postconviction trial court appears to have incorrectly applied the heightened requirements to establish due diligence during an evidentiary hearing to evaluate the allegations at a pleading stage. However, permitting a newly discovered evidence claim to proceed to an evidentiary hearing does not establish that the recanted testimony qualifies as newly discovered evidence as a matter of law. See Swafford, 679 So.2d at 739. The newly discovered evidence claim remains to be factually tested in an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant has demonstrated that the successive motion has been filed within the time limit for when the statement was or could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See id. The motion here was sufficiently pled to allow the opportunity to prove through the testimony of witnesses that the threshold requirement of due diligence was satisfied. Accordingly, the postconviction trial court erred in summarily denying this claim on the basis that the pleading failed to sufficiently satisfy the due diligence requirement at that stage of the proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 So. 3d 178 - Nordelo v. State

3. “I, Angel Lopez, do swear under penalty of perjury, that the following statements are true and correct: I was involved in the armed robbery of the Circle-K convenience store on May 29, 1990, at approximately 6:45 am, located at 595 SE Okeechobee Road. I entered this convenience store with an accomplice named Jose Sanchez, not Mr. Marco Nordelo. Mr. Nordelo was not present at the time of the robbery, and was not involved in any way. I was then involved in the Grand Theft of a Ford Taurus on the next day, May 30, 1990. I was driving this stolen car when I came into contact with Mr. Nordelo. Mr. Nordelo was the passenger in this car when we were both arrested on May 31, 1990. Any items from the robbery that were in the car were placed there by me. I did not come forward with this information sooner, as I was afraid that the Office of the State Attorney would take away my plea offer. I took the plea and then refused to testify. I was ignorant of the law and was afraid that if I had not cooperated with the State Attorney, then my plea would have been refused. Marco Nordelo was mis-identified by Mr. Benavides, the victim in the robbery. He should have never been convicted because he is innocent of this crime. I feel it is now time to come forward with the truth.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 So. 3d 178 - Nordelo v. State