WPC Ey=s.n«#īRh$`MK->k_=v.BY3􎗿v#m<ͽDoCioBgZfL}@"'1嘪ʙycXD=D+(]ܩ#ךgA[UaY]1z]*#CE[aH؞i뢪r $;taW«H@o.V6 C"!P^A!__s*"HUmTTGeB=4\BQ8/[ %K]q!M͵ݞ@wڐSJSƮ2)Pࢺ2[/׹pӃ6KfzLS ((d`SC^mi.϶jȧ{F"}\g)O!Ă Ȑ"$#إǚ> mEx?xܮľ/;#!:UKN[ % 0(U 6U > NK 0lM^ w@4( m*GA BrU0G 1U6VUFi;"U8)U.)UN%*U>s* 1*U68+Bn+U N. 0.UN0UF1%H1 0S<m6UN6p6UNg=UN=U>>U6A> 0w>C@ 0 B 0DUNFhFUNUIsIUNKJdK 0=L 0FL 0P1MUNMMUNTUN!U!U!UEoUoUoU?qUqU4VVVVVVV ZWW 0C>XXXXXXXXX Z}YY ZrZZ Z_[[\G\^^4abBdhjn6!v#Wypz~fru،MV̐"v& p H  d++++++ bYYYYY \ fF p 1ua֭ h ^ n lw n,۲ p jͻ7 hL nf dB l R???????? X ex ZP77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777  0Z 0d  \ 0-iLexmark X6100 SeriesPX,..,PX0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman((3$ !      0  +z0 DDD%KV-orel03|xMU = $    5    _PXXBaseduponthisdisclosure,itwasreasonableforcollateralcounseltorely  onthe presumptionthattheprosecutorwouldfullyperformhisdutytodiscloseallexculpatoryevidence._Strickler_Ԁv.Greene,527U.S.263,284(1999). $ NothinghadbeenprovidedtoindicatethatMr.Daviswhowasnotlistedasawitnessattrialpossessedanyinformation.SeeBanksv._Dretke_,124S.Ct.1256, H 1275(2004)( Arulethusdeclaringprosecutormayhide,defensemustseekisnottenableinasystemconstitutionallyboundtoaccorddefendantsdueprocess). d h $    1    _PXXAlthoughthesearetheonlyissuesproperlypresentedinthisappeal,Mr.  _Tompkins_ԀisalternativelypresentingissuesregardingthesubstanceoftheRule3.850motioninanabundanceofcaution.Mr._Tompkins_Ԁissentencedtodeath.Theresultofthisappealmaydeterminewhetherhelivesordies.Mr._Tompkins_doesnotwishtoriskbeingaccusedofwaivingtheclaimsinhismotion.) `CG Times ~ $    4    _PXXWhenconsideredcumulativelywithpreviousallegationsshowingKathy  Stevenslackofcredibility,thereisnoquestionthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁhasshownhisentitlementtorelief.SeeArgumentIII,infra.(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular _ $    14    _PXXInthedeposition,Barbara_Decarr_Ԁtestifiedasfollows:  ` ҀQ.WereyoutherewhenWendywasgivingthestatement?A.Yes.Q.DoyourememberwhatWendysaid?A.ShesaidshegointoabrownPintoQ.AnddoyouA.withcoloredwindows.Q.AnddoyourememberwhatWendysaidshewaswearing?A.Jeansandatopandapocketbook.Q.Jeansandamaroonoraredtop?A.Yes.Q.Andherpurse.A.Herpurse.Q.Okay.AndWendysawherdothat?A.ShesaidsheseenLisagettingintoacar.Q.AndthatwastheafternoonthatLisadisappeared.A.Yes.Shesaidsheseenitfromherbus.` (DepositionofBarbara_DeCarr_,p.45). z !  _B.X` hp x XB @  @ XX. @ B.X` hp x XXBX4VXXXXX4V  .  #XXXXɃ##X4VXXXɢ#%  XXXX4V  13  %  ݀#X4VXXX#PXX4VThiswasafterthebodywasfoundunderthehousewhereBarbara_DeCarr_Ԁhad  toldthepolicetolookaftershecommittedherselftoapsychiatricward.AccordingtoDetective_Rademaker_,Barbara_DeCarr_Ԁtoldhim, shecouldntgiveanyreasonastowhyshethoughtthebodywasunderthere,butshethoughtshethought[sic]thebodywasunderthere,butshethoughtthatitwassomeplaceonthepropertyandpossiblyundertheunderthehouse.(R.170).Infact,DetectiveBurkereportedthatonJune4,1984at2:30_pm_.hehad checkedtheyardslocated  l  attheaddressandfoundnoareasthatlookedsuspiciousastoagrave.ThiswaspursuanttoBarbarassuggestiononJune1st: ShestatedthatshetalkedtoDet._Gullo_Ԁviaphoneandhadaskedhimtogocheckthebackyardoftheresidenceof1225E.Osbornebecauseshenowsuspectsthatherdaughtermaybeburiedinthebackyard.#X4VXP#XX4V<4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`(Courier(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `&Times New Roman(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New 8 $    10    _"PXXIn1989,prosecutorBenitoobjectedtoMr._Tompkins_efforttocallKathy  Stevenstothewitnessstand.Judge_Coe_ԀsustainedBenitosobjection,butorderedthepartiestospeaktoKathyStevensinthehallwayandplaceontherecordwhat $  shesaid.ThepartiesthenrepresentedthatKathyStevens _state[d_]aftershetalkedwith[Benito,he]arrangedavisitwithherandherboyfriendinthejailbecauseshedidnthaveproperID,and[Benito]didmakeiteasyforhertogetinthere.[Benito]broughtherovertovisittheboyfriend(PCR.2021).(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular6 4heading 2     &p x & XXXK<6X9`(Courier NewK     S\  `&Times New RomanS   &p x &  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    16    _&PXXAccordingtoLisasschoolrecords,BarbaraalsotoldtheschoolthatLisa  hadrunaway: March23rd caughtsmokingoffcampussuspended[illegible] $ parentarrives  < 25th Momsayschildranawayyesterday(24th).Thinkschildmaybe N pregnant.   f 3/29 NowordfromLisa.Authorityfeelsokay.Noreport.  ( x 4/5 Nocontact  @  4/19 Visitedhomevacated  X  4/20 Message,_ph_.Mommovedlastweek  p  4/21 studentssaidchildcallfromN.Y.Ispregnant   Barbara_DeCarr_ԀbelievedLisahadrunawayandsuspectedshewaspregnant.Inherdeposition,Barbara_DeCarr_ԀtestifiedthatshebelievedLisahadrunawaytoNewYorkandthatseveralofLisa'sfriendsreportedseeingher thesummerafter   herdisappearance (DepositionofBarbara_DeCarr_Ԁat4143).<:footnote ref(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular f !  _B.X` hp x XB @  @ (XX*. @ B.X` hp x XXB*X4VX+XXXX4V  .  #+XXXXɃ##(X4VXXXɢ#%  +XXXX4V  17  %  #(X4VXXX#(PXX4VIn1989,MikeBenitotestifiedthathetookover_Turco_sprosecutiontwoweeks  afterWayne_Tompkins_sentenceofdeath.Heexplained, Iwalkeddowntocourt.IwasabouttoofferMr._Turco_Ԁanegotiation.IgotinhereandIlookedatMr._Turco_ԀandIsaid,ThisguyshowedalotofgutscomingforwardasajailhouseinformanttotestifyastowhatMr._Tompkins_Ԁtoldhim.(PCR.235).So,Benito gotupandwalkeddownhereandannouncedthecase,andsaid,Inolprosit.Agrateful_Turco_Ԁ lookedat[Benito]likehehadjustbeenhandedhisfirstbicycleatChristmas.(PCR.236).#(X4VXP#(XX4V*(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular\  `&Times New Roman<6X9`(Courier New<:footnote tex   8.X` hp x 8K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS  8.X` hp x 8   ~ $    18    _0PXXIn1989,Mr._Tompkins_ԀattemptedtocallStevensasawitness.Whenthe  prosecutorobjected,thecourtrequiredthepartiestoconferwithStevensandreporttothecourtwhatsheindicated.Atthattime,itwasplacedintherecordthatKathyStevenssaidthatLisa alwaysworetheringsallthetime,andparticularlytherewasaringsherememberedontheindexfingerthatwasflatlikeaninitialring,istheway,Ibelieve,thewordsheused.(PCR.22).:8Body Text 2   8.X` hp x 8XXXK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS  8.X` hp x 8  <:Body Text In  X  5+ ` hp x 5XXXK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS  5+ ` hp x 5 X  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular ^ $    20    _2PXXInthenewlydisclosedMay3,1984,report,itisreportedthat, Graham  statedhehashadacontinualproblemwithprowlersandvehiclesloiteringinthisfieldusuallyduringtheearlymorninghours(02300530h.,sevendaysaweek).Grahamstatedhehasfoundwomensunderclothingandpursesinthefield,onnumerousoccasions;healsostatedhehasheardwhatsoundedlikefemalescreamsonnumerousoccasions,butdidnotpersonallycheckonithimself.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular i $    21    _4PXXAnothernewlydisclosedreportrevealsthatonJune9,1984,_W.H._ԀGraham  foundadditionalbonesintheareawherethebodybelievedtobeJessie_Albach_wasfound.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular @ $    22    _9PXXThe11/26/81CriminalIntelligenceReportregardingEverettKnight  (A.K.A.Bob_McKelvin_)indicatesthatMr.Knightownsagreen70PontiacCatalina.($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0 (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  $    23    _;PXX<PPInhisRule3.853motion,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁrequestedtestingofhairsfound  withthebodyandofthebones.Mr._Tompkins_ԀarguedthatDNAtestingoftheboneidentifiedastheremainsofLisa_DeCarr_ԀwoulddeterminedefinitivelywhethertheremainswerethoseofLisa_DeCarr_Ԁ(3PCR.__( CertainlytestingoftheremainsandthehaircouldproduceresultsthatwouldexonerateMr._Tompkins_.Clearly,iftheremainsarenotthoseofLisa_DeCarr_,theStatescasecrumbles.#;P Ps#)).GiventhatMr._Tompkins_ԀwasconvictedofmurderingLisa_DeCarr_,  l DNAevidencethattheremainswerenotthoseofLisa_DeCarr_ԀwouldhaveresultedinMr._Tompkins_acquittal.Mr._Tompkins_Ԁalsocontendedthattestingofthehairswouldproduceevidenceexoneratinghim:<PP Ifthehairthatwasfoundwiththe R  remainsdoesnotmatchMr._Tompkins_ԀnorLisa_DeCarr_,itwouldbeevidenceofMr._Tompkins_innocence._Zollman_Ԁv.State,820So.2d1059(Fla.2ndDCA v  2002)(3PCR.__).#;P P-#(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular 5 $    2    _PXXThecircuitcourtdidnotexplainhowithadjurisdictiontodismissthe  motionsifitlackedjurisdictionduringthependencyoftheappealofthepriorRule3.850motion. * $    3    _PXXLogicallyitwouldseemthatacourtwithoutjurisdictiondoesnothavethe  jurisdictiontoenteranorderdismissingaproperlyfiledmotionforcollateralrelief.NTompkins v. State, 502 So. 2d 415 (Fla.)1($     _}{ fs24Tompkinsv.State}{fs24, }ri0slmult1tx-720faautolin0{fs24 502So.2d415(Fla.), }ri0slmult1tqchyphpar0rin0itap0{fs24}{fs24cert}{fs24.}{fs24denied}{fs24,483U.S.1033(1987)WUnited States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 1031 _UnitedStatesv._Agurs_,    427U.S.97,103104&n.8(1976)YGiglio v. United States, 150 U.S. 150, 11 __Giglio_Ԁv.UnitedStates,    150U.S.150,153(1972)[United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (11 _UnitedStatesv._Bagley_,    473U.S.667(1985) R $    6    _PXXTheBillofParticularsstatedthatMr._Tompkins_ԀkilledLisa_DeCarr_  "between8:30_a.m_Ԁand5:00p.m.onMarch24,1983"(R.39798).%  %iX  ݀Atthe1989postconvictionhearing,trialprosecutorBenitoconfirmedthathistheorywasthattheoffenseoccurredatabout9:30or10:00a.m.onthatdate(PCR.87).  $    7    _PXXStevensalsotestifiedthatwhileMr._Tompkins_ԀwasassaultingLisa,there  was"amansittinginthecornerchair"maybefourorfivefeetaway"justsittingtherewatchingitlikenothingwasgoingon"(R.25253).%  %|9).  ݀Stevenshadneverseenthemanbefore(Id.).Lisawaswearingapinkrobe,and"Ibelieveshestillhadher 6 ringsonthatmorning"butshewasnotwearingearrings(R.25354). w $    8    _PXXSeeR.346( KathyStevens,shehasgotabsolutelynonenoreasonto  lie....Hertestimonyalone,ladiesandgentlemen,alone,convictsthisman.Shehasgotnoreasontolie);R.349( Shetoldyouthetruth).  $    9    _PXXAnothersignificantchangeinStevens'testimonyfromherstatementto  BenitowasthatattrialsheclaimedathirdpersonwaswatchingMr._Tompkins_attackLisa.NomentionwasmadeofthisstartlingfacttoBenito.ThiswasrelevanttoStevens'credibility,demonstratingthatherstorywasnottrueandsubjecttotheinconsistenciesassociatedwithfabrications. 8 $    10    _PXXIn1989,prosecutorBenitoobjectedtoMr._Tompkins_efforttocallKathy  Stevenstothewitnessstand.Judge_Coe_ԀsustainedBenitosobjection,butorderedthepartiestospeaktoKathyStevensinthehallwayandplaceontherecordwhat $  shesaid.ThepartiesthenrepresentedthatKathyStevens _state[d_]aftershetalkedwith[Benito,he]arrangedavisitwithherandherboyfriendinthejailbecauseshedidnthaveproperID,and[Benito]didmakeiteasyforhertogetinthere.[Benito]broughtherovertovisittheboyfriend(1PCR.2021).  $    11    _PXXSee_Gorham_Ԁv.State,597So.2d782(Fla.1992)(murderconviction  overturnedbecausetheStatefailedtorevealapaymentof$10toawitnessduringthependencyofthecriminalchargesagainst_Gorham_);Romanv.State,528So.2d $ 1169(Fla.1988)(newtrialorderedwhenitwasdisclosedthattheStatefailedtoturnoverapriorstatementofawitnessthatcontainedadiscrepancywiththewitness'stestimonywhichwouldhavesupportedthedefensetheory).  !  _B.X` hp x XB @  @ XX. @ B.X` hp x XXBX4VXXXXX4V  .  #XXXXɃ##X4VXXXɢ#%  XXXX4V  12  %  #X4VXXX#PXX4VKathyStevens(ifshecanbebelieved)testifiedthatwhenshesawLisaonMarch  24thshewasnotwearingearrings(R.260).#X4VXP#XX4V  !  _B.X` hp x XB @  @ XX. @ B.X` hp x XXBX4VXXXXX4V  .  #XXXXɃ##X4VXXXɢ#%  XXXX4V  13  %  ݀#X4VXXX#PXX4VThiswasafterthebodywasfoundunderthehousewhereBarbara_DeCarr_Ԁhad  toldthepolicetolookaftershecommittedherselftoapsychiatricward.AccordingtoDetective_Rademaker_,Barbara_DeCarr_Ԁtoldhim, shecouldntgiveanyreasonastowhyshethoughtthebodywasunderthere,butshethoughtshethought[sic]thebodywasunderthere,butshethoughtthatitwassomeplaceonthepropertyandpossiblyundertheunderthehouse.(R.170).Infact,DetectiveBurkereportedthatonJune4,1984at2:30_pm_.hehad checkedtheyardslocated  l  attheaddressandfoundnoareasthatlookedsuspiciousastoagrave.ThiswaspursuanttoBarbarassuggestiononJune1st: ShestatedthatshetalkedtoDet._Gullo_Ԁviaphoneandhadaskedhimtogocheckthebackyardoftheresidenceof1225E.Osbornebecauseshenowsuspectsthatherdaughtermaybeburiedinthebackyard.(3PCR.239).#X4VXP#XX4V , $    15    _PXXOndirectappeal,thisCourtrejectedMr._Tompkins_ConfrontationClause  claimregardinglimitationsonthecrossexaminationofBarbara_DeCarr_Ԁbecause [_t]he_Ԁtrialcourtfoundthateachofthequestionstowhichthestateobjectedwasirrelevantorcalledforhearsaytestimony._Tompkins_Ԁv.State,502So.2dat419. 6 However,thisignoredthefactthisevidencecontradictedhertestimonythatMr._Tompkins_ԀwasthelastonetoreportseeingLisa,thusconstitutedimpeachment.  $    16    _PXXAccordingtoLisasschoolrecords,BarbaraalsotoldtheschoolthatLisa  hadrunaway: March23rd caughtsmokingoffcampussuspended[illegible] $ parentarrives  < 25th Momsayschildranawayyesterday(24th).Thinkschildmaybe N pregnant.   f 3/29 NowordfromLisa.Authorityfeelsokay.Noreport.  ( x 4/5 Nocontact  @  4/19 Visitedhomevacated  X  4/20 Message,_ph_.Mommovedlastweek  p  4/21 studentssaidchildcallfromN.Y.Ispregnant   (3PCR.15758).Barbara_DeCarr_ԀbelievedLisahadrunawayandsuspectedshewaspregnant.Inherdeposition,Barbara_DeCarr_ԀtestifiedthatshebelievedLisahadrunawaytoNewYorkandthatseveralofLisa'sfriendsreportedseeingher thesummerafterherdisappearance (DepositionofBarbara_DeCarr_Ԁat4143). f !  _B.X` hp x XB @  @ XX. @ B.X` hp x XXBX4VXXXXX4V  .  #XXXXɃ##X4VXXXɢ#%  XXXX4V  17  %  #X4VXXX#PXX4VIn1989,MikeBenitotestifiedthathetookover_Turco_sprosecutiontwoweeks  afterWayne_Tompkins_sentenceofdeath.Heexplained, Iwalkeddowntocourt.IwasabouttoofferMr._Turco_Ԁanegotiation.IgotinhereandIlookedatMr._Turco_ԀandIsaid,ThisguyshowedalotofgutscomingforwardasajailhouseinformanttotestifyastowhatMr._Tompkins_Ԁtoldhim.(1PCR.235).So,Benito gotupandwalkeddownhereandannouncedthecase,andsaid,Inolprosit.Agrateful_Turco_Ԁ lookedat[Benito]likehehadjustbeenhandedhisfirstbicycleatChristmas.(1PCR.236).#X4VXP#XX4V ~ $    18    _PXXIn1989,Mr._Tompkins_ԀattemptedtocallStevensasawitness.Whenthe  prosecutorobjected,thecourtrequiredthepartiestoconferwithStevensandreporttothecourtwhatsheindicated.Atthattime,itwasplacedintherecordthatKathyStevenssaidthatLisa alwaysworetheringsallthetime,andparticularlytherewasaringsherememberedontheindexfingerthatwasflatlikeaninitialring,istheway,Ibelieve,thewordsheused.(1PCR.22). \ $    19    _PXXThenameEverettKnightwasneverdisclosedbytheState,norwas  KnightslengthyrapsheetwhichwasintheStatespossessionandincludedaconvictionfor sexoffensecrimeagainstnature.Thefactthat_McKelvin_ԀwasreallyEverettKnightwasalsoneverdisclosed.Therefore,thejurywasnevermadeawareofthesignificanceofDetectiveBurkesfailuretofollowuponthe_McKelvin_Ԁlead.AlsodisclosedinAprilof2001isaCriminalIntelligenceReportdatedNov.26,1981,thatsetforthEverettKnightscriminalspecialties, Hijackingandarmedrobbery.AlthoughBarbara_DeCarr_Ԁtestifiedincrossexaminationbeforethejurythat Bob_McKelvin_ԀhadpropositionedLisaandhadbasicallytoldherthathewoulddocertainthingsforherforsexualfavors(R. R   228),becausetheStatefailedtodisclosetheextentof_McKelvin_scriminalbackground,defensecounselwasunabletoadequatelycrossexamineDetectiveBurkeandBarbara_DeCarr_.#X4VXPT# k $    20    _PXXInthenewlydisclosedMay3,1984,report,itisreportedthat, Graham  statedhehashadacontinualproblemwithprowlersandvehiclesloiteringinthisfieldusuallyduringtheearlymorninghours(02300530h.,sevendaysaweek).Grahamstatedhehasfoundwomensunderclothingandpursesinthefield,onnumerousoccasions;healsostatedhehasheardwhatsoundedlikefemalescreamsonnumerousoccasions,butdidnotpersonallycheckonithimself.(3PCR.129). u $    21    _PXXAnothernewlydisclosedreportrevealsthatonJune9,1984,_W.H._ԀGraham  foundadditionalbonesintheareawherethebodybelievedtobeJessie_Albach_wasfound(3PCR.129). L $    22    _PXXThe11/26/81CriminalIntelligenceReportregardingEverettKnight  (A.K.A.Bob_McKelvin_)indicatesthatMr.Knightownsagreen70PontiacCatalina(3PCR.123).  $    23    _PXX PPInhisRule3.853motion,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁrequestedtestingofhairsfound  withthebodyandofthebones.Mr._Tompkins_ԀarguedthatDNAtestingoftheboneidentifiedastheremainsofLisa_DeCarr_ԀwoulddeterminedefinitivelywhethertheremainswerethoseofLisa_DeCarr_Ԁ(3PCR.224)( CertainlytestingoftheremainsandthehaircouldproduceresultsthatwouldexonerateMr._Tompkins_.Clearly,iftheremainsarenotthoseofLisa_DeCarr_,theStatescasecrumbles.#P Ps#)).GiventhatMr._Tompkins_ԀwasconvictedofmurderingLisa_DeCarr_,  l DNAevidencethattheremainswerenotthoseofLisa_DeCarr_ԀwouldhaveresultedinMr._Tompkins_acquittal.Mr._Tompkins_Ԁalsocontendedthattestingofthehairswouldproduceevidenceexoneratinghim: PP Ifthehairthatwasfoundwiththe R  remainsdoesnotmatchMr._Tompkins_ԀnorLisa_DeCarr_,itwouldbeevidenceofMr._Tompkins_innocence._Zollman_Ԁv.State,820So.2d1059(Fla.2ndDCA v  2002)(3PCR.225).#P P.# l $    24    _PXXHavingextendedtoMr._Tompkins_ԀarighttoobtainDNAtestingofthe  physicalevidenceinhiscase,theStateofFloridacanonlyextinguishthatrightinamannerthatcomportswithdueprocess.pZollman v. State, 820 So.2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 2nd DC1 !  _XXXX_Zollman_Ԁv.State,820So.2d1059,1062(Fla.2ndDCA2002)#Xt-XXX+# > $    25    _PXXThe reasonableprobabilitystandardisafamiliarlegalstandardthatwas  firstadoptedandexplainedbytheSupremeCourtin r _Strickland_Ԁv.Washington.  Thenextyear,theSupremeCourtusedthatstandardfordeterminingwhetherundisclosedexculpatoryevidencewasmaterial. } UnitedStatesv._Bagley_.This 6 standardismetandreversalisrequiredoncethereviewingcourtconcludesthatthereexistsa reasonableprobabilitythathadthe[_unpresented_]evidencebeendisclosedtothedefense,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent._Bagley_,473U.S.at680. . ~   TheSupremeCourtandthisCourthaveexplainedthatthe reasonableprobabilitystandardrequiresthecourttoanalyzetheevidencethatthejurydidnothear collectively,notitembyitem.  _Kyles_Ԁv.Whitley,514U.S.at436 d  (1995);  Youngv.State,739So.2d553,559(Fla.1999).Thus,theproperstandard v  iswhether thefavorableevidencecouldreasonablybetakentoputthewholecaseinsuchadifferentlightastoundermineconfidenceintheverdict._Kyles_,   514U.S.at435(footnoteomitted).See  _Lightbourne_Ԁv.State,742So.238,24748  (Fla.1999).Thus,the reasonableprobabilitystandardmandatedbyRule3.853requirescumulativeconsiderationofalltheevidencenotheardbythejuryasaresultofeithertheStatesfailuretodiscloseunderBradyordefensecounsels 2 failuretoadequatelyinvestigateunder_Strickland_whendeterminingwhetherthere D isa reasonableprobabilityofadifferentoutcome.Thewealthofexculpatoryevidencenotpresentedattrialbutdiscoveredduring_postconviction_Ԁproceedings,seeArgumentIII,supra,mustbeconsideredwhenconsideringwhetherthe *z allegedDNAresultscouldcreatea reasonableprobabilityofadifferentoutcome.  _Lightbourne_Ԁv.State;_  _Statev._Gunsby_.Itisnotaquestionofwhether N therewassufficientevidencetoconvict.In_Kyles_,theSupremeCourtexplained: `  [_T]he_ԀquestionisnotwhethertheStatewouldhavehadacasetogotothejuryifithaddisclosedthefavorableevidence,butwhetherwecanbeconfidentthatthejurysverdictwouldhavebeenthesame.Confidencethatitwouldhavebeencannotsurvivearecapofthesuppressedevidenceanditssignificancefortheprosecution.514U.S.at453.xStrickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)1 !  _XPXXX_Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668(1984)#XwXXXP.#United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)1 !  _XPXXXUnitedStatesv._Bagley_,473U.S.667(1985)#XwXXXP.#Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. at 419, 434 (1995)Young v. State, 739 So.2d 553, 559 (Fla. 1999)1 !  _XPXXXYoungv.State,739So.2d553,559(Fla.1999)#XwXXXP+#Lightbourne v. State, 742 So. 238, 247H48 (Fla. 19913#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) !  _XXXX_Lightbourne_Ԁv.State,742So.238,24748(Fla.1999)#Xt-XXX+#Lightbourne v. State, 742 So. 238, 247H48 (Fla. 199State v. Gunsby, 670 So.2d 920 (Fla. 1996)1 !  _XXXXStatev._Gunsby_,670#X4VXXX+#XXXX4VԀSo.2d920(Fla.1996)#X4VXXXɧ#Knighten v. State, 829 So.2d 249, 252 (Fla 2nd DC1 !  _XXXX_Knighten_Ԁv.State,829So.2d249,252(Fla2ndDCA2002)#Xt-XXX+#Borland v. State, 848 So.2d 1288, 1290 (Fla. 2003)1 !  _XXXXBorlandv.State,848So.2d1288,1290(Fla.2003)#Xt-XXX+#  $    26    _PXXThisCourthaslongheldthatunderRule3.850,a_movant_Ԁisentitledtoan  evidentiaryhearingunlessthemotionandrecordconclusivelyshowheisentitledtonorelieforunlessthemotionislegallyinsufficient.  Freemanv.State,761So. $ 2d1055,1061(Fla.2000);  Gaskinv.State,737So.2d509,516(Fla.1999).The 6 trialcourtmustacceptallallegationsinthemotionastruetotheextentthattheyarenotconclusivelyrebuttedbytherecord.Gaskin,737So.2dat516.Whilethe  Z defendanthastheburdenofpleadingaprimafaciebasisforrelief, anevidentiary  l hearingispresumednecessaryabsentaconclusivedemonstrationthatthe . ~ defendantisentitledtonorelief.Gaskin,737So.2dat516(emphasisin @  original).Thus,underRule3.850, theburdenisupontheStatetodemonstratethatthemotionislegallyflawedorthattherecordconclusivelydemonstratesnoentitlementtorelief.Id.Inordertosupportasummarydenial,thecircuitcourt v   musteitherstateitsrationaleinitsdecisionorattachthosespecificpartsoftherecordthatrefuteeachclaimpresentedinthemotion.  Spencerv.State,842So.   2d52,69(Fla.2003).TheseprinciplesareequallyapplicabletoRule3.853,asexplainedinBorland.Noswornevidencesubjecttoconfrontationwaspresented  bytheStateregardingthematter.ThisabsenceofevidentiarydevelopmentcannotsupportdenialofMr._Tompkins_motion.#X4VXPT#PXX4VFreeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000)1 !  _#XXXXFreemanv.State,761So.2d1055,1061(Fla.2000)#X4VXX#X+#Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509, 516 (Fla. 1999)1 !  _#XXXXGaskinv.State,737So.2d509,516(Fla.1999)#X4VXX#X+#Spencer v. State, 842 So. 2d 52, 69 (Fla. 2003)1 !  _#XXXXSpencerv.State,842So.2d52,69(Fla.2003)#X4VXX#X+#Manual v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1399 (Fla. 2nd1 !  _XXXXManualv.State,28Fla.L.WeeklyD1399(Fla.2ndDCAJune13,  2003)#X4VXXX+#Knighten v. State, 829 So.2d 249, 252 (Fla 2nd DCRiley v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1790 (Fla. 2nd1 !  _XXXXRileyv.State,28Fla.L.WeeklyD1790(Fla.2ndDCAJuly30,  2003)#Xt-XXX+#Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985)1 !  _XXXX_Evitts_Ԁv._Lucey_,469U.S.387(1985)#Xt-XXX+#Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (1995)1 [_}{_Kyles_Ԁv.Whitley}{,115S.Ct.1555(1995)Strickler v. Greene, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (1991 F_}{ Stricklerv.Greene}{,119S.Ct.1936(1999)67878(2$0 0 0 0 (<$0 0 0 0 0 :1($ !  _ PXX84VXXdd8@G G INTHESUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDA  @&&"CASENO.031902??' 4pdE4p? < @ww#WAYNE_TOMPKINS_,@*  Appellant,@)v.@ZZ"STATEOFFLORIDA,@*  Appellee.??' 4xpdE4p?    @ ONAPPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURT@ OFTHETHIRTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT,@INANDFORHILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY,STATEOFFLORIDA??' 48pdE45p? 6 ??' dE X? Y @ INITIALBRIEFOFAPPELLANT??' dE ?      `     h      p      x    `     h   MARTINJ._MCCLAIN_     `     h   SpecialAssistant_CCRC_ԄSouth   `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773   `     h   141N.E.30thStreet   `     h   WiltonManors,FL33334   `     h   (305)98483444   `     h   oOFFICEOFTHECAPITAL   `     h     COLLATERALREGIONAL   `     h     COUNSELSOUTH          `     h    101NE3rdAve.,Suite400 (#&    `     h   FortLauderdale,FL33301   `     h   (954)7131284  *&(     `   ,-(*    `     h   COUNSELFORAPPELLANT  ,-(* 84VXXdXXd8@  PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT     Thisproceedinginvolvestheappealofthecircuitcourt'sdismissalofapostconvictionmotiononthebasisthatthecourtlackedjurisdiction.Thefollowingsymbolswillbeusedtodesignatereferencestotherecordinthisappeal:  "R."recordondirectappealtothisCourt;  1PCR.recordonfirstRule3.850appealtothisCourt;  "2PCR."recordonsecond3.850appealtothisCourt;  3PCR.recoRdonthis3.850appealtothisCourt.   H @k k  REQUESTFORORALARGUMENT     Mr.Tompkinshasbeensentencedtodeath.Theresolutionoftheissuesinvolvedinthisactionwillthereforedeterminewhetherhelivesordies.ThisCourthasnothesitatedtoalloworalargumentinothercapitalcasesinasimilarproceduralposture.Afullopportunitytoairtheissuesthroughoralargumentwouldbemorethanappropriateinthiscase,giventheseriousnessoftheclaimsinvolvedandthestakesatissue.Mr.Tompkins,throughcounsel,accordinglyurgesthattheCourtpermitoralargument.  $ @" TABLEOFCONTENTS   F!F!G(# Page  &   2  @KK  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   F!F!G(# Page  &   2  @  STATEMENTOFTHECASE     Mr.Tompkinswasindictedforfirstdegreemurderandplednotguilty.TrialcommencedSeptember16,1983,andajuryfoundMr.Tompkinsguilty(R.401).Followingapenaltyphase,thejuryrecommendedthedeathpenalty,andthejudgeimposedasentenceofdeath(R.67881).Theconvictionandsentence XXwereaffirmed. K Tompkinsv.State,502So.2d415(Fla.),cert.denied,483U.S.1033 h  (1987).)PPAfteradeathwarrantwassigned,Mr.Tompkinsfiledapostconviction   motion,andthecircuitcourtheldanevidentiaryhearing.Thoughthecircuitcourtfoundtrialcounselsperformancewasdeficientregardingthepenaltyphase,thecourtdeniedrelief.ThisCourtstayedtheexecutionandlateraffirmedthedenialofrelief.Tompkinsv.Dugger,549So.2d1370(Fla.1989).Afteraseconddeath l warrant,Mr.Tompkinsfiledafederalhabeaspetition,andthefederaldistrictcourtstayedtheexecution.Anamendedpetitionwassubsequentlyfiledanddenied.Onappeal,theEleventhCircuitaffirmed.Tompkinsv.Moore,193F.3d1327   (11thCir.1999),cert.denied,121S.Ct.149(2000).#P)P}# "   AfterthesigningofathirddeathwarrantMr.Tompkinsfiledanumberofmotions,includingaMotionforDNATesting(2PCR.3156),aMotiontoCompelProductionofPublic_Records__(2PC__R._____),_ԀandasecondMotiontoVacateJudgmentsofConvictionandSentencepursuanttoFla.R.Crim.P.3.850 <+&$ (2PCR.182307).Thelowercourttookevidenceonvariousofthesemotions,includingtheDNAmotion(2PCR.4/11/01Transcript,pp.95et.seq.),asithad $ beenallegedthattheitemssoughttobetestedhadbeenlost.ThecircuitcourtheardargumentandgrantedanevidentiaryhearingonClaimVoftheRule3.850motionpertainingtotheissueofthesentencingjudgeserrorinfailingtoindependentlyweighaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesandinfailingtodisclosetoMr.TompkinsthefactthattheStatepreparedthefindingsinsupportofthedeathsentence.Aftertheevidentiaryhearing,thecourtgrantedsentencingreliefonClaimVandvacatedMr.Tompkins'deathsentence(2PCR.433et.   seq.).Thecircuitcourtdeniedallotherclaimswithoutanevidentiaryhearing D (Id.).Mr.Tompkinsappealedthedenialoftheseclaims,andtheStatecross h appealedthelowercourt'sgrantofsentencingrelief.ThisCourtaffirmedthecircuitcourtsdenialofsomeclaimsandreversedthatcourtsgrantofsentencingrelief.Tompkinsv.State,28Fla.L.WeeklyS767(Fla.Oct.9,2003).     InAugustof2002,whileMr.Tompkinsappealwaspending,Mr.TompkinsfiledamotiontorelinquishjurisdictionunderStatev.Menses,392 $  So.2d905(Fla.1981),withthisCourtinordertoprovidethecircuitcourtwithjurisdictiontoconsideraclaimbaseduponevidenceMr.TompkinscounselhaddiscoveredasaresultofrecordsonlydisclosedbytheStatein2001and2002. 8+&$ ThisCourtdeniedMr.Tompkinsmotion.  Subsequently,Mr.TompkinscounselappearedbeforethisCourtinanothercase,Duestv.State,CaseNo.SC002366.Duringtheoralargument,Justice H Wellssuggestedthattheproperprocedureforcounselwherenewevidenceisfoundwhileacaseispendingonappealisforcounseltogoaheadandfileanewmotiontovacateincircuitcourt.Asaresult,Mr.TompkinscounselfiledaRule3.850motionbaseduponthenewevidenceeventhoughanappealofthepriormotiontovacatewasstillpendinginthisCourt.Mr.TompkinscounselsimultaneouslyfiledaRule3.853motionseekingtohaveDNAtestingconductedontheremainsthathadbeenintroducedintoevidenceasthoseofLisaDeCarr.GiventhatthepreviousrequesthadbeenmadeanddeniedpriortothepromulgationofRule3.853,Fla.R.Crim.P.,Mr.Tompkinswishedtofileinordertoguaranteeinvocationoftherulewithinthetwoyearwindowthenpermitted.  ThecircuitenteredanorderdismissingbothmotionsonAugust22,2003,onthebasisthatitlackedjurisdiction.Mr.Tompkinsfiledamotionforrehearingwiththecircuitcourtpointingoutthatthecircuitcourtlackedjurisdictiontodismissthemotion.Mr.Tompkinstimelyfiledanoticeofappeal. @ ! SUMMARYOFARGUMENT  )d$"  PP  1.ThisCourtshoulddirectthecircuitcourttoconsiderandruleonMr. <+&$ TompkinsRule3.850andRule3.853motions.ThecircuitcourtdeniedbothmotionsonthebasisofalackofjurisdictionbecausethedenialofsimilarmotionsispendingonappealbeforethisCourt.Under#P P%#Statev.Meneses,392So.2d905 H (Fla.1981) PP,thecircuitcourtlackedjurisdictiontodismissMr.TompkinsRule  l 3.850andRule3.853motions.Thedismissalmustbereversed.  2.ThecircuitcourterredindenyingMr.TompkinsRule3.850motionwithoutanevidentiaryhearing.Themotionallegedfactsregardingbothhissubstantiveclaimandhisdiligenceinpursuingtheevidencegivingrisetothatclaim.Thesefactsarenotconclusivelyrebuttedbytherecord.Acceptingthesefactsastrue,asisrequired,Mr.Tompkinsisentitledtoanevidentiaryhearing.  3.Oneofthe threekeywitnessesatMr.TompkinstrialwasKathyStevens,whotestifiedthatonthedayLisaDeCarrdisappeared,shesawMr.TompkinsassaultingLisaDeCarrandthatshetoldLisaDeCarrsboyfriendabouttheassault.WhenMr.Tompkinscounselfinallylocatedtheboyfriend,JamesM.Davis,Jr.,in2002,Mr.DavisattestedinaswornaffidavitthathedidnotseeKathyStevensonthedayLisaDeCarrdisappearedandthatKathyStevensdidnottellhimaboutMr.TompkinsassaultingLisaDeCarr.ThisevidencesubstantiallyimpeachesStevenstestimonyandgivesrisetoclaimsunder#P P'#Bradyv.Maryland, )d$" 373U.S.83(1963),Gigliov.UnitedStates,150U.S.150(1972),andStrickland 8+&$ v.Washington,466U.S.668(1984). PPԀStevenstestimonywasessentialtothe  Statescase.Undereitherthe reasonableprobabilitystandardofBradyand $ Stricklandv.Washingtonorthe noeffectstandardofGiglio,Mr.Daviss H affidavitestablishesthatMr.Tompkinsisentitledtoanewtrial.Further,whentheevidencefromMr.Davisisconsideredcumulativelywiththetrialevidenceandtheevidencepreviouslypresentedinpostconviction,Mr.Tompkinsentitlementtoanewtrialcannotbequestioned.  4.UnderRule3.853,Fla.R.Crim.P.,Mr.TompkinsisentitledtoDNAtestingoftheskeletalremainsidentifiedattrialasLisaDeCarrandofhairsfoundwiththoseremains.InhisRule3.853motion,Mr.TompkinsallegedthathewouldbeexoneratedbythisDNAtestingbecausetestingoftheboneswouldestablishthattheywerenotLisaDeCarrsbonesandbecausetestingofthehairswouldestablishthatthehairsdidnotbelongtoeitherMr.TompkinsorLisaDeCarr.Mr.TompkinsallegationssatisfiedthepleadingrequirementsofRule3.853andmustbeacceptedastrue.DenyingMr.TompkinsDNAtestingunderRule3.853wouldviolatedueprocess.#P Pv-# $  @! STANDARDOFREVIEW  &@"   PP  AstoArgumentI,theissuepresentsamixedquestionoflawandfact )h$" requiringdenovoreview,givingdeferenceonlytoanycircuitcourtfactfindings. <+&$ Stephensv.State,748So.2d1028,1034(Fla.1999).Theonlypossible   factfindingmadebythecircuitcourtwasthatthemotionspresentedissuessimilartotheissuespresentedintheappealpendingbeforethisCourt.  ArgumentsII,III,andIVpresentquestionsoflawrequiringdenovoreview.  l Stevens.Sincenoevidentiarydevelopmentwaspermitted,Mr.Tompkins @  allegationsmustbeacceptedastrue.#P P2#Borlandv.State,848So.2d1288,1290(Fla. d  2003) PP;#P P`6#Maharajv.State,684So.2d726,728(Fla.1996).   @77& ARGUMENT    XX@% ARGUMENTI  $  THISCOURTSHOULDDIRECTTHECIRCUITCOURTTO L CONSIDERANDRULEONMR.TOMPKINSRULE3.850MOTIONANDONHISMOTIONFORDNATESTING.  $t   TheonlyissuesproperlybeforethisCourtinthisappealarewhetherthecircuitcourtcorrectlydismissedMr.TompkinsRule3.850andDNAmotionsonthebasisofalackofjurisdictionandwhetherthecircuitcourtshouldberequiredtoconsiderandruleuponthesubstanceofthosemotions. M  1      ׀AtthetimeMr. " Tompkinsfiledthemotionsatissueinthisappeal,Mr.TompkinsandtheStates $*  appealsoftherulingsonthepriorRule3.850motionwerependingbeforethisCourt.ThecircuitcourtdismissedMr.Tompkinsmotions,rulingthatitlackedjurisdictionbecausethepreviousRule3.850motionwasonappealinthisCourt(3PCR.23,citingMcFarlandv.State,808So.2d274(Fla.1stDCA2002)).B M  2      ׀  l   InStatev.Meneses,392So.2d905(Fla.1981),thisCourtheld, while @  appealproceedingsorcertiorariproceedingsarependinginanappellatecourt,thetrialcourtiswithoutjurisdictiontoentertainamotiontovacate.Meneses,392   So.2dat907.TheCourtalsostatedthatitsholding doesnotpreclude  defendantsseekinganorderfromtheappellatecourttotemporarilyrelinquishjurisdictiontothetrialcourtforthepurposeoffilingandbeingheardonamotiontovacatepriortotheappellatecourtsdispositionofthecase.Id.Whilethe h decisionwhetherornottograntrelinquishmentiswithintheappellatecourtsdiscretion, denialoftherequesttorelinquish...isnotarulingonthemeritsofthemotiontovacateandwillnotpreventasubsequentfilingofamotiontovacatewiththetrialcourtattheconclusionoftheproceedingsintheappellatecourt.Id. "   ThisCourthassubsequentlyexplained:ThefactsgivingrisetotheclaimhereinfirstbecameknowntoSireci &@"  duringthependencyoftheappealfromthedenialoftheinitial3.850motion.Assoonasthefactswereavailable,SirecimovedtheSupremeCourttorelinquishjurisdictionofhiscasetothecircuitcourtinordertoallowthefactsandanyclaimderivedfromthemtoberuleduponinthecircuitcourt.ThisCourtdeniedSirecismotion.AsSirecipointsout,adenialofarequesttorelinquishjurisdictiontothetrialcourtisnotarulingonthemerits.Statev.Meneses,392So.  l 2d905(Fla.1981).Statev.Sireci,502So.2d1221,1224(Fla.1987). R    AlthoughMenesesinvolvedthependencyofdirectappealproceedings,this v  Courthasapplieditsholdingtopostconvictionappeals,rulingthatwhenanappealofthedenialofaRule3.850motionispending,acircuitcourtlacksjurisdictiontoentertainanotherRule3.850motion.Bryanv.State,743So.2d 2 508(Fla.1999);Statev.Sireci,502So.2d1221,1224(Fla.1987).Floridas V DistrictCourtsofAppeallikewisefollowtheMenesesrulewhenapostconviction *z appeal,ratherthanadirectappeal,ispending.Washingtonv.State,823So.2d N 248,249(Fla.4thDCA2002);Braxtonv.State,568So.2d1003(Fla.2dDCA r 1990);Leev.State,392So.2d913,914(Fla.1stDCA1980);Gobiev.State,188 ! So.2d34,3435(Fla.3dDCA1966).  ThebasisoftheMenesesruleisthat atrialcourthasnopowertoruleon %.! anissuewhichwouldinterferewiththeauthorityoftheappellatecourt.Washington,823So.2dat249.Thisfoundationhasgivenrisetoanothergroupof &*v%# casesinwhichtheissuespresentedinthependingappealaredifferentfromtheissuespresentedinthemotionorpetitionfiledinthecircuitcourt.  ThisCourthasreliedonthisreasoninginonecapitalcase.Francoisv. H Klein,431So.2d165(Fla.1983).There,thedefendantfiledaRule3.850motion  l inthecircuitcourt,allegingthathehadreceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselattrial.Whilethatmotionwaspendinginthecircuitcourt,thedefendantfiledahabeascorpuspetitioninthisCourt,allegingthathereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselondirectappeal.Afterthedefendantfiledthehabeascorpuspetition,thecircuitcourtdismissedtheRule3.850motiononthegroundthatitlackedjurisdictionwhilethehabeascorpuspetitionwaspendinginthisCourt.ThedefendantsoughtawritofmandamusfromthisCourttorequirethecircuitcourttoconsidertheRule3.850motion.ThisCourtgrantedthewritofmandamus.TheCourtdistinguishedMeneses,reasoningthatthependencyofthe ` habeascorpuspetitiondidnotdivestthecircuitcourtofjurisdictionovertheRule3.850motionbecausethehabeascorpuspetitionallegedtheineffectivenessofappellatecounselandtheRule3.850motionallegedtheineffectivenessoftrialcounsel.TheCourtconcluded, Sincethethetwojudicialattacksonpetitionersconvictionsandsentencesofdeathwerethusseparateanddistinct,therewasnodanger,astherewasinMeneses,ofconflictingandconfusingrulings,bydifferent 8+&$ courtsonthesameissues.Francois,431So.2dat166.    TheDistrictCourtsofAppealhavefollowedFrancoisinseveralcasesin $ whichcircuitcourtshaddismissedRule3.850motionsbecausehabeascorpuspetitionswerependingintheappellatecourts.Whitev.State,855So.2d723,724  l (Fla.3dDCA2003);Gawronskiv.State,801So.2d211(Fla.2dDCA2001); @  Baberv.State,696So.2d490,491(Fla.4thDCA1997).Inthesecases,the d  DistrictCourtsofAppealremandedthecasesinorderforthecircuitcourtstoconsiderthemeritsofthepostconvictionmotions,asthisCourtdidinFrancois.  TheDistrictCourtsofAppealhavealsoappliedreasoningsimilartothatofFrancoisinnumerouscases.Forexample,inMitchellv.State,846So.2d559, D 561(Fla.4thDCA2003),theFourthDistrictruledthatthecircuitcourterredindismissingaRule3.850motionchallengingthedefendantsconvictionwhileanappealonthedefendantsresentencingwaspendingbecause theissues[inthetwoproceedings]wereentirelyunrelated.Inanothercase,theSecondDistrictruledthatthecircuitcourthadjurisdictiontoconsideramotionRule3.800(a),Fla.R.Crim.P.,althoughaRule3.850appealwaspendingintheappellatecourtbecause theappealofapostconvictionmotionwillnotdeprivethetrialcourtofjurisdictioninasubsequentmotionunlesstheissuesaresimilar.Montaguev. )d$" State,710So.2d228,229(Fla.2dDCA1998),citing,Batesv.State,704So.2d 8+&$ _562(Fla.1stDCA1997).TheFirstDistrictCourtofAppealhasalsoheldthattheMenesesruledoesnotautomaticallyapplyduringthependencyofapost $ convictionappealtodivestacircuitcourtofjurisdictionoveranotherpostconvictionmotion.Kimmelv.State,629So.2d1110(Fla.1stDCA1994).In  l Kimmel,theFirstDistrictruledthatthependencyofapostconvictionappealdoes @  notdivestthecircuitcourtofjurisdictionoveranotherpostconvictionmotion iftheissuespresentedinasubsequentmotionorpetitionareunrelatedtothosepreviouslydeniedandwhicharethenonappeal.629So.2dat1111.TheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealhasreachedthesameconclusion.Lindsayv.State,842   So.2d1057,1059(Fla.4thDCA2003).TheFourthDistricthasalsorelieduponthisreasoningtoholdthatcircuitcourtshavejurisdictionovermotionsforDNAtestingfiledunderRule3.853,Fla.R.Crim.P.,whenaRule3.850motionispendingonappeal.Newberryv.State,827So.2d387(Fla.4thDCA2002).In ` allofthesecases,asinFrancois,theappellatecourtsdirectedthecircuitcourtsto   considerthemeritsofthenewmotions.  InMcFarlandv.State,citedbythecircuitcourtindismissingMr. $  Tompkinsmotions,thecircuitcourtdismissedaRule3.850motionwhichwasfiledwhiletheappealofaRule3.800(a)motionwaspendingonappeal.808So.2dat274.Thedistrictcourtstated, Whileanappealofapriorpostconviction 8+&$ motionispending,thetrialcourthasnojurisdictiontoruleonasubsequentpostconvictionmotionwhentheissuesinthetwomotionsarerelated.D M  3      ׀Id.However, $ thedistrictcourtreversedthedismissalspecificallyonthegroundsthattheissuesinthetwomotionswere unrelated.Id.  l   UndereithertheMenesesorFrancoislinesofcases,Mr.Tompkinsmustbe @  allowedtopursuehisRule3.850andDNAmotionsinthecircuitcourt.UnderMeneses,thecircuitcourtlackedjurisdiction,andtherefore,Mr.Tompkins   motionsshouldnothavebeendismissed.Meneses,392So.2dat907.Under  Francois,thecircuitcourtwasrequiredtodeterminewhetherornottheissues   presentedinthemotionsweresimilartothosepresentedinMr.Tompkinspendingappeal.IftheissuesaresimilarastheyplainlyareandasthecircuitcourtfoundthecircuitcourtwasrequiredtofollowMeneses,anddonothing < untiltheappealthatwaspendingbeforethisCourtwasresolved.TheorderdismissingMr.Tompkinsmotionsmustbereversed.@% ARGUMENTII " THECIRCUITCOURTERREDASAMATTEROFLAWINDISMISSINGMR.TOMPKINSRULE3.850MOTIONWITHOUTANEVIDENTIARYHEARING.  &H"  Ї  Thelawattendanttothegrantingofanevidentiaryhearinginapostconvictionproceedingisoftstatedandwellsettled:"[u]nderrule3.850,apostconvictiondefendantisentitledtoanevidentiaryhearingunlessthemotionandrecordconclusivelyshowthatthedefendantisentitledtonorelief."Gaskin  l v.State,737So.2d509,516(Fla.1999).AccordPattonv.State,784So.2d380, @  386(Fla.2000);Arbelaezv.State,775So.2d909,91415(Fla.2000).Theruleis d  thesameforasuccessivepostconvictionmotion,whereallegationsofpreviousunavailabilityofnewfacts,aswellasdiligenceofthemovant,warrantevidentiarydevelopmentifdisputedorifaproceduralbardoesnot"appear[]onthefaceofthepleadings."Cardv.State,652So.2d344,346(Fla.1995).Factualallegationsas D tothemeritsofaconstitutionalclaimaswellastoissuesofdiligencemustbeacceptedastrue,andanevidentiaryhearingiswarrantediftheclaimsinvolve"disputedissuesoffact."Maharajv.State,684So.2d726,728(Fla.1996).In ` Mr.Tompkins'case,thelowercourterroneouslyfailedtograntanevidentiaryhearingdespiteallegationsregardingthesubstanceofthenewevidence,theconstitutionalclaimsbaseduponthenewevidence,andMr.Tompkinsdiligenceinattemptingtounearththenewevidence.  Mr.TompkinsRule3.850motionpledfactsregardingthemeritsofhisclaimsandregardinghisdiligencewhichmustbeacceptedastrue.Whenthese 8+&$ factsareacceptedastrue,itisclearthatthefilesandrecordsdonotconclusivelyrebutMr.Tompkinsclaimsandthatanevidentiaryhearingisrequired.  AstheprosecutorsaidattrialandasthisCourtrecognizedondirectappeal,Mr.Tompkinsconvictionanddeathsentenceareentirelydependentuponthetestimonyofthreewitnesses.Attrial,theprosecutorsaidthat thekeytestimonywillcomefromthree...witnessesBarbaraDeCarr(LisaDeCarrsmother),KathyStevens(LisaDeCarrsbestfriend)andKennethTurco(ajailhousesnitch)andthat [t]hosethreewillprovidetheoverwhelmingevidenceofMr.Tompkinsguilt(R.108).Ondirectappeal,thisCourtidentifiedthesewitnessesas thestatesthreekeywitnesses.Tompkinsv.State,502So.2dat417. D   TheRule3.850motionatissueinthisappealpresentsallegationsraisingconstitutionalissuesregardingoneofthese threekeywitnesses,KathyStevens.Attrial,StevenstestifiedthatonMarch24,1983,shewenttoLisaDeCarrshouse%  %Dn  because"Lisaandmehadmadeplanstorunaway(R.249).%  %n9).  ݀Stevensarrivedbetween6:00and6:20a.m.(Id.).Lisasaidshewasnotgoingtorunawaybecause " sheandhermotherwere goingtodealwithit,andStevensleft(R.250).  StevenstestifiedthatsheleftherpurseattheDeCarrhouseandwentbackforitbetween8:00and9:00a.m,althoughitcouldhavebeenafter9:00a.m.(R.251).%  %p9).  WhenStevenswenttothefrontdoorofthehouse,shehearda"loudcrash," 8+&$ andwhensheopenedthefrontdoor,StevenssawLisaandMr._Tompkins_"strugglingonthecouch"(R.252).Mr._Tompkins_ԀwasontopofLisa"tryingtotakeherclothesoffandthat'saboutit"(R.252).Lisa"askedmetocallthepolice,"andStevensbelievedthatWayneyelled"getout"(R.25253).Stevensleft,didnotcallthepolice,andinstead"wentuptothestore"wheresheranintoLisa'sboyfriend(R.254).Stevenstoldtheboyfriendthatshewantedtocallthepolice,butshedidnotbecause"itwasalittlebitofbeingscaredandnotknowingwhattoexpect"andLisa'sboyfriend"justwalkedawaylikeitwasnothing"(Id.).%  %sd  ݀  Shethenwenttoschoolbecauseshedidnotwanttogetinvolved(R.255).%  %td    LisaDeCarrsboyfriendatthetimeofherdisappearancewas JuniorDavis.AfteryearsofsearchingandaftertheStatefinallyprovidedpreviouslyundiscloseddocumentsaboutDavisin2001(seeinfra),Mr.Tompkinscounsel < located JuniorDavisinAprilof2002. JuniorDavissfullnameisJamesM.Davis,Jr.Uponbeingcontacted,Mr.DavisreportedthathehadbeenLisaDecarrsboyfriendinMarchof1983.Inaswornaffidavit,Mr.Davisstated, [t]hestoryofKathyrunningintomeatthestorethedayLisadisappearedisnottrue.IfanyonehadtoldmethatWaynewasattackingLisaandshewasscreamingforsomeonetocallthepolice,Iwouldhavegonedirectlythere(AffidavitofJamesM.Davis,Jr.,paragraph6,3PCR.260).Mr.Daviselaborated: 8+&$ IfIthoughttherewasanywayIcouldhavehelped[Lisa],Iwouldhave,especiallyifshewereintrouble.ThisiswhywhatKathysaidisnottrue.IneversawKathyonthemorningthatLisadisappeared,nordidKathyevertellmethatshehadjustseenLisabeingattackedbyWayne.Infact,thefirsttimeIheardofanythinghavingpossiblyhappenedtoLisawaswhenIheardontheradioshewasmissing.(AffidavitofJamesM.Davis,Jr.,paragraph8,3PCR.260).  TheinformationprovidedbyJamesM.Davis,Jr.,establishesthatKathyStevenstrialtestimonywasnottruthfulandissignificantimpeachmentofthattestimony._ M  4      _ԀThisinformationgivesrisetoconstitutionalclaimsunderBradyv.   Maryland,373U.S.83(1963),_Giglio_Ԁv.UnitedStates,405U.S.150(1972),and  _Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668(1984).KathyStevenstrialtestimony 2 wasessentialtoMr._Tompkins_convictionanddeathsentence.TheprosecutorrelieduponStevenstestimonytourgethejurytoconvictMr._Tompkins_,arguing, [_h]er_Ԁtestimonyalone...convictsthisman(R.346;seealsoR.34649,360). N TheprosecutorrelieduponStevenstestimonytourgethejurytorecommendadeathsentence(R.44445).ThetrialjudgerelieduponStevenstestimonytosupportthe committedduringafelonyaggravatingcircumstance(R.679).Ondirectappeal,thisCourtrelieduponStevenstestimonytosustainMr._Tompkins_ %.! convictionanddeathsentence._Tompkins_Ԁv.State,502So.2dat418,42021.The  factualallegationsregardingMr.Davisandtheconstitutionalissueshisaffidavitraisesarenotconclusivelyrefutedbytherecord.  Mr._Tompkins_Rule3.850motionmadeextensivefactualallegationsregardinghisdiligenceinattemptingtolocateMr.Davis(3PCR._____7375)._ԀInAprilof2001,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁwasunderadeathwarrant.HiscounselrequestedpublicrecordsunderRule3.852,Fla.R._Crim_.P.AsMr._Tompkins_Rule3.850motionpled,documentsfirstdisclosedbytheStateinresponsetothoserequestsledMr._Tompkins_counseltoMr.Davis.IncludedinthedocumentsfirstturnedoverinAprilof2001,weretwoleadsheetspreparedbyDetectiveBurke,theleaddetectiveonthecase(2PCR.6465).Inthesepreviouslyundisclosedleadsheetsweretworeferencesto Jr.Davis.Thefirsthandwrittennotationsays, InterviewedJr.DavisLisa_DeCarr_sB.F.!couldgiveonlybackground!sawLisatheweekendbeforeshewasreportedmissing.Alaternotationprovided, callJrDavisback[illegible]!datesBarbaracametohishouse[illegible]!_deadend_ԀLEADschoolrecordsrevealedshewasinschoolon(2PCR.6465).  AlsoincludedindocumentsfirstdisclosedinAprilof2001,wasasupplementalpolicereportdatedJune8,1984,writtenbyDetective_Milana_.ThisreportincludedadiscussionofDetective_Milana_sinterviewofMaureenSweeney 8+&$ andMikeWillisonJune8,1984.SweeneyadvisedthatafterLisadisappeared:` JUNIOR,(Lisasteadyboyfriend)cametotheirhouseonRio_Vistat_andaskediftheyhadseenher.MIKEsawhimmuchlateratCHURCHSCHICKENandaskedifhehadheardanythingfromLISAatwhichtimeheadvisedthatshehadhurthimreallybadandthatshehadnevercalledhim,nevertriedtogetintouchwithhimandthereforehewasfinishedwiththefamily.` (2PCR.4546).ThefeelingsaboutLisaattributedto JuniorinthisreportcontradictKathyStevenstestimonythatwhenshetold JuniorthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁwas_asaulting_ԀLisa,"hejustwalkedawaylikeitwasnothing"(R.254).Maureenalsogavethefollowinginformation: JUNIOR,LISASboyfriendapprox.,17yrsofageof40thStandBuffalo(2PCR.46). 2   ThesedocumentsfirstdisclosedinAprilof2001providedMr._Tompkins_newinformationtocontinuehisattemptstolocate JuniorDavis.Mr.TompkinscounselhadpreviouslyattemptedtolocateMr.Davisin1989,eventhoughMr.DaviswasnotlistedasawitnessintheStatesdiscoveryresponses(seeR.50405, r 591,600,654,655).Hewasmentionedinonepolicereportthatwasincludedinthediscoveryprovidedtotrialandthatappearsintherecord.ThisreportdidnotindicatethatMr.Daviswasinpossessionofanyusefulinformation,butjusttheopposite:inthereport,DetectiveBurkestatedheinterviewedJuniorDaviswhosaidhehad noinformationastotheeventssurroundingLISA[s]disappearance &*v%# (R.530)._ M  5      _ԀThereportlistedaphonenumberforMr.Davis,butin1989,whileMr.  _Tompkins_casewasunderwarrantandhiscounselwaspreparinghisfirstRule3.850motion,Mr._Tompkins_counselwasadvisedthatMr.Daviswasnotatthelistedphonenumber.Mr._Tompkins_counselcouldnotlocateMr.DavisandhadnoindicationthatMr.Davispossessedanyrelevantorusefulinformation.  In2001,thenewlydisclosedleadsheetsandDet._Milana_ssupplementalpolicereportdatedJune8,1984,providedadditionalinformationwhichassistedinthesearchforMr.DavisandwhichrevealedforthefirsttimethatMr.Davismaypossesssignificantevidence.UsingtheinformationthatMr.Daviswas17yearsoldin1984andlivedat 40thStandBuffalo,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁconductedfollowupinterviewsafterhewasprovidedthenewlydisclosedreportsinordertogathermoreinformationthatmighthelpcounsellocate Junior.ThelegalteamrepresentingMr._Tompkins_Ԁkeptpluggingtheinformationgatheredintocomputerdatabasesinordertotrytolocate Junior.Mr._Tompkins_ԀwasabletoascertainthatJuniorsgivennamewasJamesDavis,Jr.Underthependencyofthe2001 " warrant,counsellocatedanumberofJamesDaviss,buteachturnedoutnottobeLisa_DeCarr_sboyfriend.AfterMr.Tompkinsexecutionwasstayed,thesearchforJamesDavis,Jr.continued.FinallyinAprilof2002,thelocationofaJamesDavis,Sr.wasturnedupononeoftheoftenrepeatedcomputerruns.ThisJamesDavisturnedouttobethefatheroftheJamesDavis,Jr.,whohadbeenLisa_DeCarr_sboyfriend(3PCR._75)._  ThefactsregardingMr.TompkinsdiligenceinsearchingforMr.Davisarenotconclusivelyrefutedbytherecord.TheinformationnowprovidedbyMr.DavisconstitutesevidenceoftheprejudicesufferedbyMr._Tompkins_ԀduetothefailureoftheStatetotimelydisclosethepolicereportsandleadsheetsinitspossession.Banksv._Dretke_,124S.Ct.at1275( Arulethusdeclaringprosecutor h mayhide,defensemustseekisnottenableinasystemconstitutionallyboundtoaccorddefendantsdueprocess).Hadthesedocumentsbeendisclosedinatimelymanner,counselwouldhavefollowedupontheinformationcontainedthereinandwouldhavelearnedoftheexculpatoryinformationthatMr.Davispossessed.  ThefactsallegedintheRule3.850motionregardingtheexculpatoryinformationMr.DavispossessedandregardingMr.Tompkinsdiligencearenotconclusivelyrefutedbytherecord.Anevidentiaryhearingisrequired.@$ ARGUMENTIII  8+&$  MR._TOMPKINS_ԀWASDEPRIVEDOFHISRIGHTSTODUE  PROCESSUNDERTHEFOURTEENTHAMENDMENTASWELLASHISRIGHTSUNDERTHEFIFTH,SIXTH,ANDEIGHTHAMENDMENTS,BECAUSETHESTATEFAILEDTODISCLOSEEVIDENCEWHICHWASMATERIALANDEXCULPATORYINNATUREAND/ORPRESENTEDMISLEADINGEVIDENCEAND/ORDEFENSECOUNSELUNREASONABLYFAILEDTODISCOVERANDPRESENTEXCULPATORYEVIDENCE PP. P  #PP#  AsexplainedinArgumentII,supra,Mr._Tompkins_convictionanddeath z  sentencerestuponthetestimonyof threekeywitnesses._Tompkins_Ԁv.State,502   So.2dat417.TheaffidavitofJamesM.Davis,Jr.,providesevidencesignificantlyimpeachingoneofthesewitnesses,KathyStevens(AffidavitofJamesM.Davis,Jr.,3PCR.25961).ThisaffidavitgivesrisetoseveralconstitutionalclaimswhichentitleMr._Tompkins_Ԁtoanewtrial.Further,whenMr.Davissaffidavitisconsideredcumulativelywithotherevidencepreviouslypresentedinpostconviction,Mr._Tompkins_entitlementtoanewtrialcannotbequestioned.InSectionA,infra,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁdiscussestheconstitutionalissues   arisingfromMr.Davissaffidavit,inSectionB,infra,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁarguesthat " theissuesarisingfromMr.Davissaffidavitmustbeconsideredonthemerits,andinSectionC,infra,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁdiscussesthecumulativeanalysiswhichmust 'V"  beappliedtoMr._Tompkins_claims. A.0  THEAFFIDAVITOFJAMESM.DAVIS,JR.,ESTABLISHESTHAT N+&$ MR._TOMPKINS_ԀISENTITLEDTOANEWTRIAL. (#(#   KathyStevenstestimonywasintegraltoMr._Tompkins_convictionanddeathsentence.Attrial,StevenstestifiedthatonMarch24,1983,shewenttoLisa_DeCarr_shouse%  %  ݀because"Lisaandmehadmadeplanstorunaway(R.249).%  %$9).  ݀Stevensarrivedbetween6:00and6:20a.m.(Id.).Lisasaidshewasnotgoingto F  runawaybecausesheandhermotherwere goingtodealwithit,andStevensleft(R.250).Stevenstestifiedthatsheleftherpurseatthe_DeCarr_Ԁhouseandwentbackforitbetween8:00and9:00a.m.althoughitcouldhavebeenafter9:00a.m.(R.251).%  %9).  WhenStevenswenttothefrontdoorofthehouse,shehearda"loudcrash,"andwhensheopenedthefrontdoor,StevenssawLisaandMr._Tompkins_"strugglingonthecouch"(R.252).Mr._Tompkins_ԀwasontopofLisa"tryingtotakeherclothesoffandthat'saboutit"(R.252).Lisa"askedmetocallthepolice,"andStevensbelievedthatWayneyelled"getout"(R.25253).Stevensleft,didnotcallthepolice,andinstead"wentuptothestore"wheresheranintoLisa'sboyfriend(R.254).Stevenstoldtheboyfriendthatshewantedtocallthepolice,butshedidnotbecause"itwasalittlebitofbeingscaredandnotknowingwhattoexpect"andLisa'sboyfriend"justwalkedawaylikeitwasnothing"(Id.).%  %Nd  ݀ &F"  Shethenwenttoschoolbecauseshedidnotwanttogetinvolved(R.255).%  %d    Lisa_DeCarr_sboyfriendatthetimeofherdisappearancewas Junior >+&$ Davis.AfteryearsofsearchingandaftertheStatefinallyprovidedpreviouslyundiscloseddocumentsaboutDavisin2001(seeinfra),Mr._Tompkins_counsel $ located JuniorDavisinAprilof2002. JuniorDavissfullnameisJamesM.Davis,Jr.Uponbeingcontacted,Mr.DavisreportedthathehadbeenLisa_Decarr_sboyfriendinMarchof1983.Inaswornaffidavit,Mr.Davisstated, [_t]he_ԀstoryofKathyrunningintomeatthestorethedayLisadisappearedisnottrue.IfanyonehadtoldmethatWaynewasattackingLisaandshewasscreamingforsomeonetocallthepolice,Iwouldhavegonedirectlythere(AffidavitofJamesM.Davis,Jr.,paragraph6,3PCR.260).Mr.Daviselaborated:IfIthoughttherewasanywayIcouldhavehelped[Lisa],Iwouldhave,especiallyifshewereintrouble.ThisiswhywhatKathysaidisnottrue.IneversawKathyonthemorningthatLisadisappeared,nordidKathyevertellmethatshehadjustseenLisabeingattackedbyWayne.Infact,thefirsttimeIheardofanythinghavingpossiblyhappenedtoLisawaswhenIheardontheradioshewasmissing.(AffidavitofJamesM.Davis,Jr.,paragraph8,3PCR.260).  TheinformationprovidedbyJamesM.Davis,Jr.,establishesthatKathyStevenstrialtestimonywasnottruthfulandissignificantimpeachmentofthattestimony.ThisinformationgivesrisetoconstitutionalclaimsunderBradyv. %.! Maryland,,_Giglio_Ԁv.UnitedStates,,andStricklandv.Washington.Kathy (R#! StevenstrialtestimonywasessentialtoMr.Tompkinsconvictionanddeath &*v%# sentence.TheprosecutorrelieduponStevenstestimonytourgethejurytoconvictMr.Tompkins,arguingthat [h]ertestimonyalone...convictsthismanandthatshewouldnotlie(R.34649,360).TheprosecutoralsorelieduponStevenstestimonytourgethejurytorecommendadeathsentence(R.44445).ThetrialjudgerelieduponStevenstestimonytosupportthe committedduringafelonyaggravatingcircumstance(R.679).Onappeal,thisCourtrelieduponStevenstestimonytosustaintheconvictionanddeathsentence._Tompkins_Ԁv.   State,502So.2dat418,42021.    TheStatesfailuretodisclosetheexculpatoryevidencepossessedbyJamesM.Davis,Jr.,violatedBradyv.Maryland.ThisCourthasexplained: Under D Brady,thegovernmentssuppressionoffavorableevidenceviolatesadefendants h dueprocessrightsundertheFourteenthAmendment.SeeBrady,373U.S.at86 < (suppressionofconfessionisviolationFourteenthAmendment).Rogersv.State, ` 783So.2d980(Fla.2001).SeeBanksv._Dretke_,124S.Ct.at1275( Arulethus   declaringprosecutormayhide,defensemustseekisnottenableinasystemconstitutionallyboundtoaccorddefendantsdueprocess).?+ ` hp x X?  TheSupremeCourtmadeclearin  _Kyles_Ԁv.Whitley,514U.S.419(1995), &@"  thatdueprocessrequirestheprosecutortofulfillhisobligationofknowingwhatmaterial,favorableandexculpatoryevidenceisintheStatespossessionand 8+&$ disclosingthatevidencetodefensecounsel:Unless,indeed,theadversarysystemofprosecutionistodescendtoagladiatoriallevelunmitigatedbyanyprosecutorialobligationforthesakeoftruth,thegovernmentsimplycannotavoidresponsibilityforknowingwhenthesuppressionofevidencehascometoportendsuchaneffectonatrialsoutcomeastodestroyconfidenceinitsresult.6" ` hp X69% ` hp X9_Kyles_,514U.S.at439.  InordertocomplywithBrady, theindividualprosecutor @  hasadutytolearnoffavorableevidenceknowntoothersactingonthegovernmentsbehalf._Kyles_,514U.S.at437.     3` ` hp X3In_Strickler_Ԁv.Greene,at281,quotingBergerv.UnitedStates,295U.S.78,  88(1935).theSupremeCourtreiteratedthe specialroleplayedbytheAmericanprosecutorasone whoseinterest...inacriminalprosecutionisnotthatitshallwinacase,butthatjusticeshallbedone.TheCourtalsorepeatedthataprosecutorhasadutytodiscloseexculpatoryevidenceeventhoughtherehasbeennorequestbythedefendant,andthattheprosecutingattorneyhasadutytolearnofanyfavorableevidenceknowntoindividualsactingonthegovernmentsbehalf._Strickler_,527U.S.at28081. "   Mostrecently,theSupremeCourtstated, WhenpoliceorprosecutorsconcealsignificantexculpatoryorimpeachingmaterialintheStatespossession,itisordinarilyincumbentontheStatetosettherecordstraight.Banksv.Dretke, )d$" 124S.Ct.at1275.Thus,arule declaringprosecutormayhide,defendantmust 8+&$ seek,isnottenableinasystemconstitutionallyboundtoaccorddefendantsdueprocess.Id.at1275. $   Whereexculpatoryevidenceisnottimelydisclosed,anewtrialiswarrantedwherethenondisclosureunderminesconfidenceinthereliabilityofthejurysverdictrenderedwithoutthebenefitoftheexculpatoryevidence.TheBrady @  materialitystandardismetwhen thefavorableevidencecouldreasonablebetakentoputthewholecaseinsuchadifferentlightastoundermineconfidenceintheverdict._Kyles_,514U.S.at435.Significantly,thisisnotasufficiencyofthe  evidencestandard: Adefendantneednotdemonstratethatafterdiscountingtheinculpatoryevidenceinlightoftheundisclosedevidence,therewouldnothavebeenenoughlefttoconvict.Id.at43435.Further,inmakingthisdetermination h  courtsshouldconsidernotonlyhowtheStatessuppressionoffavorableinformationdeprivedthedefendantofdirectrelevantevidencebutalsohowithandicappedthedefendantsabilitytoinvestigateorpresentotheraspectsofthecase.Rogersv.State,782So.2dat385.Thisincludesimpeachmentpresentable " throughcrossexaminationchallengingthe thoroughnessandevengoodfaithofthe[police]investigation._Kyles_Ԁv.Whitley,514U.S.at446.Inaddition,this &@"  reviewrequirescumulativeconsiderationbegiventotheallofthenondisclosures._Kyles_Ԁv.Whitley.Thewithheldevidenceisnottobeanalyzeditem 8+&$ byiteminapiecemealfashion,butrathercollectively.See_Cardona_Ԁv.State,826  So.2d968,973(Fla.2002).  TheaffidavitofJamesM.Davis,Jr.,alsoestablishesthattheStatepresentedfalseormisleadingtestimonyatMr._Tompkins_trial.TheState'sknowinguseoffalseormisleadingevidenceis"fundamentallyunfair"becauseitis"acorruptionofthetruthseekingfunctionofthetrialprocess."_ V _UnitedStatesv._Agurs_,427 d  U.S.97,103104&n.8(1976).See X _Giglio_Ԁv.UnitedStates,405U.S.at153.A   convictionmustbesetasideifthefalsitycouldinanyreasonablelikelihoodhaveaffectedthejury'sverdict._ Z _UnitedStatesv._Bagley_,473U.S.667(1985).This   Courthasexplained, [_t]he_ԀStateasbeneficiaryofthe_Giglio_violation,bearsthe D burdentoprovethatthepresentationoffalsetestimonyattrialwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Guzmanv.State,28Fla.L.WeeklyS829,2003Fla. < LEXIS1993at*18(Fla.2003).  Alternatively,theaffidavitofJamesM.Davis,Jr.,alsoestablishesthattrialcounselprovidedineffectiveassistance._Strickland_Ԁv.Washington.IftheState " didnotfailtodisclosethisinformationand/ordidnotpresentfalseormisleadingevidence,trialcounselwasineffectiveinfailingtolocate,speaktoandpresentevidencefromMr.Davis.Statev._Gunsby_,670So.2d920(Fla.1996).Under )d$" _Strickland_,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁmustestablishdeficientperformanceandprejudice. 8+&$ However,counselmayverywellhavebeenmisledbytheonepolicereportmentioningDaviswhichwasprovidedindiscoveryandwhichsaidDavishadnoinformation(R.530).The_Strickland_prejudicestandardisthesameastheBrady H materialitystandardandrequiresestablishingthatconfidenceisunderminedintheoutcome._Kyles_,514U.S.at434. @    TheaffidavitofJamesM.Davis,Jr.,underminesconfidenceinMr._Tompkins_convictionanddeathsentence.Asexplainedabove,KathyStevenstestimonywasessentialtotheStatescase,andevidencethatshewasnottruthful couldreasonablybetakentoputthewholecaseinsuchadifferentlightastoundermineconfidenceintheverdict._Kyles_,514U.S.at435.Underthe_Giglio_ D standard,itiscleartheStatecannotestablishbeyondareasonabledoubtthatStevenstestimonywasharmless.Guzman. <  B.0  THECLAIMSBASEDUPONTHEAFFIDAVITOFJAMESM. ` DAVIS,JR.,AREBEFORETHECOURTONTHEMERITS. t(#(#  PP  Mr.DavissaffidavitispresentedinathirdRule3.850motion.As ! explainedinArgumentII,however,Mr._Tompkins_postconvictioncounseldiligentlypursuedattemptstolocateMr.Davisbeginningin1989withthefirstpostconvictionproceedingsinMr._Tompkins_case.Baseduponthesefactualallegationsregardingdiligence,thesubstantiveallegationsregardingMr.Davis **z%# mustbeconsideredonthemerits . !(!""#See#$$%3PCR.7375).%$""$    Thus,allconstitutionalclaimsarisingfromMr.DavissaffidavitmustalsobeconsideredonthemeritsanddecidedasiftheywerebeingpresentedinaninitialRule3.850motion.Mr._Tompkins_ԀhasallegedthatMr.DavissaffidavitgivesrisetoclaimsunderBradyv.Maryland,_Giglio_Ԁv.UnitedStates,and @  _Strickland_Ԁv.Washington.ThefactthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁpreviouslyalleged d  violationsofBrady,_Giglio_and_Strickland_Ԁv.WashingtondoesnotmeanthatMr.   _Tompkins_Ԁis_disentitled_Ԁtoreviewofhispresentclaimswhenhispostconvictioncounselhasexerciseddiligencesince1989.See_Provenzano_Ԁv.State,616So.2d   428,430(Fla.1993);_Lightbourne_Ԁv.State,742So.2d238,247(Fla.1999). D   Likewise,Mr._Tompkins_ԀisentitledtoafullandcumulativeconsiderationofhispreviousBrady,_Giglio_andineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaims.Wayv. < State,760So.2d903(Fla.2000);Jonesv.State,709So.2d512(Fla.1998);State ` v._Gunsby_,670So.2d920(Fla.1996).Thecumulativeevidenceisdiscussedin   SectionC,infra.Astomanypiecesofthatevidence,under_Giglio_andBanksv. " _Dretke_,theStateviolateditsaffirmativeobligation tosettherecordstraight $  whenitfailedtodisclosematerial,exculpatoryevidenceand/orpresentedfalseandmisleadingevidence.Banks,124S.Ct.at1263. Courts,#P P.#litigants,andjuries )d$" properlyanticipatethatobligations[torefrainfromimpropermethodstosecurea 8+&$ conviction]...plainlyrestingupontheprosecutingattorney,willbefaithfullyobserved.Banks,124S.Ct.at1275,quotingBergerv.UnitedStates,295U.S.at $ 88.Ratherthan faithfully_observ[ing_]thisdutyhere,theStatefailedtodiscloseexculpatoryevidenceand/orpresentedfalseormisleadingevidence.  InthefaceofMr._Tompkins_postconvictioncounselsdiligenceandtheStatesviolationsofitsdutiesunderBanks,Mr._Tompkins_claimshavebeen d  presentedpiecemealinseveralpostconvictionproceedings.Dueprocess,theEighthAmendment,andtheneedforaccuracyandreliabilityinobtainingcapitalconvictionsandsentencesrequiresthatMr._Tompkins_claimsbeconsideredonthemeritsandanalyzedcumulatively. C.0  CUMULATIVECONSIDERATIONOFTHEEVIDENCE h INTRODUCEDATTRIALANDINPOSTCONVICTIONESTABLISHESTHATANEWTRIALISREQUIRED. @(#(#   TheStatescaseforconvictingMr._Tompkins_ԀofmurderingLisa_DeCarr_requiredprovingthatMr._Tompkins_ԀwasalonewithLisaatthe_DeCarr_Ԁhouseatabout9:30or10:00a.m.onMarch24,1983._\ M  6      _ԀWithoutthisproof,therewasno " caseagainstMr._Tompkins_.EstablishingthatMr._Tompkins_Ԁwasatthe_DeCarr_ $"  houseonthatdateandatthattimeresteduponseveral_subissues_:couldanyofthe threekeywitnessesbebelieved,whenwasLisalastseen,andwhatwasLisawearingwhenshewaslastseen.ProvingthatMr._Tompkins_ԀmurderedLisa_DeCarr_ԀalsorequiredprovingthatthebodyfoundunderthehousewasLisas.Ofcourse,theStatespositionwasthatallthreewitnessesweretellingthetruth,thatLisawaslastseenwhenKathyStevenscameuponMr._Tompkins_Ԁassaultingher,thatLisawaswearingthepinkbathrobewhichwasfoundwiththebodyunderthehouse,notthejeansandmaroonshirtwhichMr._Tompkins_Ԁdescribed,andthatthebodyunderthehousewasLisas.However,substantialevidencenotpresentedattrialunderminesalloftheseconclusions.Thisevidenceexistedatthetimeoftrial,butwasnotpresentedbecausetheprosecutordidnotdiscloseitand/orbecausedefensecounselfailedtodiscoverit.Puttingallofthisevidencetogetherwiththatpresentedattrialunderminesconfidenceintheoutcomeofthetrial.  1. ` Couldthe threekeywitnessesbebelieved?       ` a. KathyStevens  "    `  _i_.Trialtestimony   $$    StevenstestifiedthatonMarch24,1983,shewenttoLisa_DeCarr_shouse%  %  because"Lisaandmehadmadeplanstorunaway(R.249).%  %n9).  ݀Stevensarrivedbetween6:00and6:20a.m.(Id.).Lisasaidshewasnotgoingtorunawaybecause D+&$ sheandhermotherwere goingtodealwithit,andStevensleft(R.250).  Stevenstestifiedthatsheleftherpurseatthe_DeCarr_Ԁhouseandwentbackforitbetween8:00and9:00_a.m_,althoughitcouldhavebeenafter9:00a.m.(R.251).%  %p9).  WhenStevenswenttothefrontdoorofthehouse,shehearda"loudcrash,"andwhensheopenedthefrontdoor,StevenssawLisaandMr._Tompkins_"strugglingonthecouch"(R.252).Mr._Tompkins_ԀwasontopofLisa"tryingtotakeherclothesoffandthat'saboutit"(R.252).Lisa"askedmetocallthepolice,"andStevensbelievedthatWayneyelled"getout"(R.25253).Stevensleft,didnotcallthepolice,andinstead"wentuptothestore"wheresheranintoLisa'sboyfriend(R.254).Stevenstoldtheboyfriendthatshewantedtocallthepolice,butshedidnotbecause"itwasalittlebitofbeingscaredandnotknowingwhattoexpect"andLisa'sboyfriend"justwalkedawaylikeitwasnothing"(Id.).%  %d  ݀ < Shethenwenttoschoolbecauseshedidnotwanttogetinvolved(R.255)._] M  7      _%  %d   `   Stevenstestifiedthatsheandanothergirlfriend,Kim,wentbacktoLisa'shouseatsomepointlater,butKimknockedatthedoor,notStevens,andKimmayhavespokenwithWayne_Tompkins_Ԁ(R.255).Stevenstestifiedthatshethen $  returnedtothehouseathirdtime,alone: [_a]round_Ԁlunchtimetooneoclock,IhadbeenbackbecauseIstillhadnotgottenmypursebecauseofthesecondtimeIwentback.(R.256).%  %4d  ݀Sheknockedatthedoor,andMr._Tompkins_Ԁanswered(Id).%  %d  ݀ H StevensaskedifLisawasthere,andwastoldshehadleftwithhermother(Id.).%  %~d    l   Oncrossexamination,Stevenstestifiedthatshedidnotcomeforwarduntilafterthebodywasfoundbecauseshe"realizedthatsomethingmorewasinvolvedthanjustherdisappearing"(R.263).ShetoldprosecutorBenitoherstoryafterhecalledhertenmonthsafterthebodywasdiscovered(R.263).%  %   ݀SheinitiallytoldBenitothatsheknewnothingaboutwhathappenedtoLisathatday,inmidMarch1985.%  %  ݀Shethentestifiedthat,after"talkingtoherpillow"onenight,shedecidedtocallBenitoagainandtellhimherstory(R.264).Stevensdeniedtellingdifferentversionsoftheeventstodifferentpeople,butacknowledgedlyingtoBarbara_DeCarr_ԀandinitiallytoBenito(R.265).   `  ii.  EvidenceimpeachingStevens      TheaffidavitofJamesM.Davis,Jr., discussedabove,istotallycontrary " toStevenstrialtestimony.Accordingtothisaffidavit,StevensdidnotencounterMr.Davisat thestoreanddidnottellhimthatMr._Tompkins_ԀwasassaultingLisa.ThisaffidavitisraisedinthecurrentRule3.850motionasthebasisofclaimsunderBrady,_Giglio_and/or_Strickland_Ԁv.Washington. H+&$   ProsecutorBenitosundisclosedmemorandaofhisinterviewswith  Stevens showthatherstorychangedsignificantlybetweenthoseinterviewsand ( hertrialtestimony.ThesememorandamemorializingStevensstatementwerenotdiscloseduntilMr._Tompkins_ԀbeganpreparinghisfirstRule3.850motionin1989.Atthe1989evidentiaryhearing,Benitotestifiedthatthesememorandaweretheequivalentofapolicereportusedtomemorializeawitness'sstatementtolawenforcementpersonnel(_PCR_.221),andthathedidnotdisclosethesememorandatothecounsel(_PCR_.222).Trialcounseltestifiedthathewasnotprovidedwiththesememoranda(_PCR_.54,57),andwasnotawareoftheircontents(_PCR_.62,65).Attrial,BenitohadvouchedforStevensveracityduringclosingarguments._ M  8       T   Benito'smemorandadetailed2phoneconversationshehadwithStevens.InamemodatedMarch13,1985,BenitorecordedthatKathysaidshesawWayneattackingLisaat8:00a.m.However,attrialthestoryhadchanged,andshe p testifiedthatthetimeofthisallegedeventwas9:30a.m.Thischangewasexceedinglysignificant,foritmadeKathy'sstoryfitwithBarbara_DeCarr_'stestimonythatshelefthomeat9:00a.m.andthatLisawasaliveandalone.  Thechangewasalsoimportantbecause8:00a.m.wasoutsidethescopeof 'P"    thebillofparticulars.HadKathytestifiedthattheattacktookplaceatatimenotwithinthebill,theStatewouldnothavebeenabletoprovethisessentialelementbeyondareasonabledoubt,asthejurywasinstructed.Moreover,nowhereinherstatementtoBenitodoesKathyindicatethatLisabeggedhertocallthepolice.Thatdetailwasaddedlatertoembellishthestory.ThedefenseattorneyneededtoknowthatsuchachangehadoccurredinordertoeffectivelycrossexamineKathy.Significantomissionsfrompriorstatementscanbejustasimpeachingasinconsistentstatements._Jencks_Ԁv.UnitedStates,353U.S.657  (1957).  AccordingtoBenitosmemorandum,Kathyalsoclaimedthatat6:30a.m.,"LisaaskedKathytocomebacklateraround11:00or12:00thatshewasgoingoffsomewherewithhermother."DefensecounselwasnevergiventhisinformationwhichiscertainlyinconsistentwiththetestimonyofBarbara_DeCarr_.AccordingtoBarbara,Lisawassupposedtobeinschool,butshestayedhomesick.Therewerenoplansformotheranddaughtertogoanywheretogether.  InthesecondundisclosedmemodatedMarch8,1985,BenitorecordedthatStevensstatedshespoketoLisaonMarch23,1983,thedaybeforeherdisappearance,andLisasaidshewasgoingtorunawayfromhome.Kathysaidshehadnofurthercontactwiththevictimafterthatdateandheroriginalstatement 8+&$ toBarbara_DeCarr_ԀthatLisawasinNewYorkandhadcontactedherwasfalse.IfshehadnofurthercontactwithLisaafterMarch23,1983,thanherwholestoryaboutwhatsheobservedthefollowingdaywasalsofalse.  Inaddition,KathydiscussedanallegedincidentbetweenLisaandMr._Tompkins_ԀonHalloween,1982.AccordingtoBenito'smemo,KathysaidthatafterLisahithim,Mr._Tompkins_ԀtoldLisa,"ifyoueverhitmeagain,Iwillkillyou." d  Thisisasignificantlydifferentstatementthanthattowhichshetestifiedattrial:"'I'mgoingtokillyou'"(R.247).ThechangeinKathy'sstoryallowedBenitotoarguethatMr._Tompkins_Ԁhadbeenplanningthemurderforfivemonths:October,1982,thismansays"I'llkillyou"toLisa,andfivemonthslaterhedid.Isthatevidenceofanintentional,premeditatedkilling?Withoutquestion.Fivemonthsbeforethismurder,thedefendantthreatenedtokillher.Thethoughtisalreadyinhismind.Thethoughtisinhismindfivemonthsbeforeheactuallykilledher.(R.347).BecauseBenitodidnotdiscloseStevens'inconsistentstatementtohim,hismisleadingargumentwentunchallengedbythedefense,toMr._Tompkins_'substantialprejudice.Davisv._Zant_,36F.3d1538,1551(11thCir.1994)._` M  9      _Ԁ "   Stevens'statementstoBenitowereraisedasaBradyviolationinMr. $  _Tompkins_1989Rule3.850motion,butarenotmentionedinthisCourtsopinionaffirmingthecircuitcourtsdenialofrelief.See_Tompkins_Ԁv._Dugger_.The $ memorandaareclearlyBradymaterial.In_Kyles_,notesfromtheprosecutor's H interviewswiththekeystatewitnessweresuppressedandfoundtobematerialBradyinformationrequiringreversal._Kyles_,514U.S.at429.Thewithheldnotes @  in_Kyles_notonlyprovidedinconsistentversionsofimportantfacts,butalsogave d  riseto"asubstantialimplicationthattheprosecutionhadcoached[thewitness]togiveit."Id.at443.  ProsecutorBenitosundiscloseddealwithStevens wasalsoraisedinthe   1989Rule3.850motion,butit,too,isnotmentionedinthisCourtsopinion.See P _Tompkins_Ԁv._Dugger_.Stevenscredibilitywasverymuchatissueduringthetrial, $t particularlygiventheState'svouchingthatshetoldthetruth(R.346,349).ThedefensedidnotknowthatwhenStevenscalledBenitoonMarch12,1985,2yearsafterthevictim'sdisappearance,tosayforthefirsttimethatshesawherfriendbeingattackedbyMr._Tompkins_,Kathyhadaboyfriendinjailwhoshehadnotbeenallowedtovisit.AfterprovidingBenitowithherstory,hearrangedforhertovisitherboyfriend(_PCR_.9,20).*_a*** M  10      _ԀShethusreceivedundisclosedbenefitforher &L"  testimony.Defensecounseltestifiedatthe1989evidentiaryhearingthathedidnotknowthisinformationatthetimeofMr._Tompkins_'trial.Whendefensecounselwasaskedwhetherthatwasevidencewhichdefensecounselwouldregardaspotentialimpeachment,thecourtresponded,"Yes"(_PCR_.67).However,becausehesuppressedthisinformation,BenitowasabletoarguetothejurythatKathyStevenshadnomotivetolie(R.346,348).  Anybenefitawitnessreceivesfortestimonymustbedisclosedinordertoinsureanadversarialtestingofthedefendant'sguiltbytestingthewitness'scredibility.DueprocessrequiresthattheStatehasanaffirmativedutytodisclosetothedefenseanypromisesithasmadetoawitness._b M  11      _Ԁ D     ` b. Barbara_DeCarr_  h    `  _i_.  Trialtestimony  @   Barbara_DeCarr_ԀtestifiedthatonMarch24,1983,sheawokeataround7 h a.m.,whenMr._Tompkins_ԀtoldherthatLisahadaheadacheandwantedtostayhomefromschool(R.204).Barbaragotuparound8a.m.,bywhichtimeMr._Tompkins_ԀhadlefttotakeBarbarassonJamietoschool(R.205).Beforesheleftthehouse,BarbaralookedinonLisa,whowasinbedinapinkbathrobewhichhadasash;shecouldn'ttellifLisahadanythingonundertherobe(R.206).Lisaalsohadjewelry:crossshapedpiercedearringsandalittlediamondringthatshealwayswore(R.207).%  %G'l  c M  12      ׀Thejewelrywasgiventoherbyherboyfriend(Id.)   Barbaraleftthehouseat9:00a.m.withjustLisaathome(R.208).ShewenttoMr._Tompkins_mothershousetohelpherpack.Whenshegottothere,Mr._Tompkins_Ԁwasalreadytherewithotherpeople(Id.).Barbarastayedthereuntil D 3:00thatafternoon(R.209).AtsomepointshesentMr._Tompkins_Ԁhometogetnewspaperstouseaspackingmaterial;shedidnotknowhowlongWaynewasgone,andhereturnedwithnewspapers(R.20910).%  %b*l  ݀Whenhereturned,hetoldherthatLisawassittingonthecouchwatchingTV(R.210).Atsomepointafterreturningwiththenewspapers,Wayneleftagainwithhisstepfather(Id.). "   Barbarafurthertestifiedthatat3:00thatafternoonWaynetoldherthatLisa"wasgone,shehadrunaway"(R.211).%  %+l  ݀Hesaidthatthelasttimehesawhershe &@"  wasatthebackdoorofthehouse"onherwaytothestore"(Id.).Healsosaidthat  Lisawaswearinga"maroonblouse,apairofjeansthathehadneverseenbefore,andherpocketbook"(R.212).BarbarathencontactedthepolicefromWayne'smother'shouse(Id.).%  %-X  ݀Barbaratestifiedthatpriortocallingthepolice,however,  l shewentbackhome,butdidnotseeLisa;shediscoveredLisa'spocketbookandrobemissing,butherwalletwasthere,aswasamaroonblouseinthedirtyclothes(R.213).%  %.X  ݀Aboutamonthlater,shemovedintoWayne'smother'shouse(R.214).%  %^/X    Oncrossexamination,BarbaratestifiedthatshortlyafterMarch23,1984,shehadadiscussionwithKathyStevens,whowasknowntoherasKathySample(R.217).%  %K0X  ݀BarbaraacknowledgedthatafterthedayLisadisappeared,severalpeoplehadinformedherthatLisahadbeenseenelsewhereinthecommunity(R.219).%  %!1X  ݀LisahadalsobeensuspendedfromschoolonMarch23rdandcouldnot < returnuntilshewasaccompaniedbyaparent(Id.).%  %1X  ݀ItwasnotuntilJune,1984, ` aftershefoundoutMr._Tompkins_Ԁwashavinganaffairwithanotherwoman,thatshetoldthepoliceofhersuspicionsthatMr._Tompkins_ԀkilledLisa(R.226,237).%  %K3X  &d&&& M  13      ׀ " ShedidnotbecomesuspiciousortellthepoliceanythingwhenMr._Tompkins_gaveheranallegedlyincorrectdescriptionofLisa'sclothesinMarch,1983(Id.).%  %4X  ݀ $    `  ii.  EvidenceimpeachingBarbara_DeCarr_  H   Barbara_DeCarr_ԀfirsttoldpoliceshelastsawLisaat1:30or2:00p.m.  p onMarch24,1983. BarbarareportedLisamissingonMarch24,1983.The H  initialpolicereport,datedMarch24,1983at5:30p.m.,isatwopagereport.Thefirstpageliststhecomplainant,thedateandthetimeoftheincidentbeingreported.The DateTimeOccurredislistedas 24Mar2313301400.ItisclearfromthefirstpageofthereportthatBarbara_DeCarr_Ԁisthecomplainant.Inthecodeboxnexttohernameappears C/P.Thecodesareexplainedabovehername,with C=Complainantand P=Parent.Thus,BarbarawasidentifiedasboththeComplainantandtheParent.Ahandwrittennotationonpageoneofthereportstates, Mrs._Decarr_Ԁstatedherdaughterranawayfromhomefornoapparentreason.ThesecondpageofthereportlistsLisa_DeCarr_Ԁa