JORGE FELIX LLERENA, 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 Florida Supreme Court's decision in State v. Leroux is not retroactive.
Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief more than two years after his convictions became final, claiming his counsel gave him misadvice. He…
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 Fundamental Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996), is retroactive. We hold that it is not.
Defendant-appellant Jorge Felix Llerena entered a plea to multiple criminal charges and was sentenced. More than two years after the convictions became final, defendant filed his motion for postconvietion relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He contends that he was given misad-vice by his trial counsel regarding the amount of time he would actually serve in prison if he accepted the plea.
Defendant acknowledges that more than two years have expired since his convictions became final, but contends that his motion is timely because under Rule 3.850(b)(2), there is an exception to the two-year time limit if “the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively.” Defendant asserts that Leroux is retroactive and that his 3.850 motion should be deemed timely because it was filed within two years after Leroux was decided.
We agree with the Fifth District Court of Appeal in that Leroux is not retroactive. Mitchell v. State, 696 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The Mitchell court stated:
Rule 3.850 provides an exception for its two-year time limit for raising claims, which involve fundamental constitutional rights not established until after the two-year time has run. Like most cases, Le-roux represents an “evolutionary refinement” in the criminal law, not a change of constitutional dimension. Consequently, it does not merit retroactive application in a collateral proceeding brought after the two-year time limit has run.
Id. at at 410 (citations and footnotes omitted).
The order denying the Rule 3.850 motion as untimely is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hammond v. State, 702 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Magwood v. State, 701 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Llerena v. State, 696 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Mitchell v. State, 696 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied mem., 700 So. 2d 686 (Fla.1997); Dean v. State, 693 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed mem., 697 So. 2d 1215 (Fla.1997). ALLEN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., co…
-
Magwood v. State, 701 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…Leroux made an evolutionary refinement in the criminal law, not a change of constitutional dimension. Therefore, it does not apply retroactively to posteonviction relief proceedings filed beyond the two-year limitation period. See Llerena v. State, 696 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Mitchell v. State, 696 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Affirmed. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.…
-
Schuyler v. State, 781 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996); Llerena v. State, 696 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- Mitchell v. State, 696 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)