Full Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________ No. 1D19-4174 _____________________ JOSEPH PAUL LOWERY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. Darlene F. Dickey, Judge. March 31, 2021 LONG, J. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Joseph Lowery’s postconviction motion for the following reasons. Background In 1999 and 2000, numerous burglaries were reported across Santa Rosa County. Joseph Lowery was suspected as a potential perpetrator and was questioned by law enforcement. He confessed to dozens of charges arising from the burglaries, including a home invasion robbery to which there were eyewitnesses. He also wrote a letter to the trial judge assigned to his case in which he further implicated himself. Lowery’s mother, Jowanna Johnson, and brother, Jason Owens, were also suspects and made statements implicating Lowery. * After a thorough colloquy, Lowery entered an open plea of no contest to all the charges and received an aggregate sentence of 50 years. This Court affirmed on direct appeal. Lowery v. State, 821 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (table). Lowery then filed multiple postconviction motions that were all unsuccessful. The motion we now consider on appeal is the latest. The Claims Lowery seeks review of the postconviction court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence. Lowery attached an affidavit to his motion from Johnson, his mother, recanting her statements made to law enforcement. She claimed her statements were coerced. She listed four names of detectives who allegedly coerced her and claimed they took advantage of the fact she was on drugs at the time they interviewed her. She now claimed she and her other son, Owens, were involved in the burglaries, but not Lowery. The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Johnson testified that she lied to law enforcement about Lowery’s involvement in the crimes because a detective told her she and Owens would be prosecuted if she did not cooperate. However, when questioned about which detective said this she could not remember any of the names listed in her affidavit. She made a parallel claim that her statements were false because she was on drugs during the commission of the crimes and during the interview which affected her memory and judgment. She also admitted that she did not come forward with her recantation until after Owens died. Lowery then testified. In conflict with his written motion, he claimed he was guilty of some of the charges against him. He was uncertain about which offenses he committed, but stated “there was no way [he] did everything [he] was charged of.” He claimed * Other non-relative suspects made statements against him as well. 2 if he had known that his mother would have testified and denied his involvement, he would not have entered the plea. He claimed he only confessed to the crimes because he was being harassed in a Louisiana jail and wanted to come back to Florida. He attempted to explain the letter he wrote to the presiding judge admitting guilt. He claimed he was admitting guilt to other crimes, not the crimes he was charged with. The detectives testified and contradicted the testimony of Johnson. They explained that Johnson had “actively assisted” in the investigation, including helping recover several stolen items. They said she appeared “coherent and lucid” during their interactions and was never forced to make any statement or asked to lie. Two of the four detectives accused of interview coercion in Johnson’s affidavit testified they never interviewed her at all. The postconviction court denied Lowery’s motion. The court made a credibility determination in favor of the detectives and against Johnson. The court noted that both Johnson and Lowery had inconsistencies between their written statements and hearing testimony. And though Lowery asserted he was innocent of all the crimes in his motion, he admitted to some of the offenses at the hearing. Conclusion “When reviewing a trial court’s determination relating to the credibility of a recantation, this Court is ‘highly deferential’ to the trial court and will affirm the lower court’s determination so long as it is supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Lambrix v. State, 39 So. 3d 260, 272 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Heath v. State, 3 So. 3d 1017, 1024 (Fla. 2009)). The postconviction court’s findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence. AFFIRMED. LEWIS and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. 3 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, and Hunter Pfeiffer, Assistant Public Defender, Milton, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 4