ALFRED PLEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding it time-barred.
The defendant's conviction became final on September 24, 1990, but his petition for writ of habeas corpus was not filed until September 9, 1993. The i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Finality Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alfred Plez appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the trial court. For present purposes we treat Plez’ oath as being sufficient. See State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1993).
We concur with the trial court that the petition is time-barred. The court found that the defendant’s conviction became final September 24, 1990, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus was not filed until September 9, 1993. The court stated in part:
Furthermore, defendant’s allegation that he could not have known about the investigation of the trial judge [Roy Gelber] and defense attorney [Arthur Luongo] is not predicated upon facts which he could not have ascertained earlier. The indictments in Operation Court Broom were announced in June, 1991, well within defendant’s two-year time limitation, and he is thereby proeedurally barred due to his failure to abide by the two-year time limitation set out in Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(Citations omitted). Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was properly denied on authority of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(h).*
We therefore need not reach the merits of the petition, but note that it appears to be insufficient under Rivera v. Dugger, 629 So. 2d 105, 107 (Fla.1993).
Affirmed.
*
The allegation that defense counsel was mistaken with respect to the defendant's maximum permissible sentence at the time of the sentencing hearing in 1990 is clearly time-barred by any standard.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. State, 662 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. WRIT DENIED. See State v. District Court of Appeal, First District, 569 So. 2d 439 (Fla.1990) (rule 3.850 prohibits habeas petitions raising issues cognizable under the rule); Plez v. State, 635 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed more than two years after conviction became final, was time barred under rule prohibiting habeas when there is an adequate remedy available under rule 3.850); Wilson v. State, 557 So. 2d…
-
KEE v. State, 794 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Plez v. State, 635 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).…
-
Reloba v. Westside Sanitation, Inc., 711 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…e reopened, or (b) include the statement of medical reasons in his appeal to the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which had to be filed within twenty days after the referee’s decision. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 38E-2.003(1); Cueto v. One Stop Fashion, 635 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We are advised by counsel for the Unemployment Appeals Commission that where the appeal to the Commission indicates a medical or other valid excuse for failing to attend the hearing, the Commission’s practice is to remand the mat…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993)
- Rivera v. Dugger, 629 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1993)