JAMES MCCRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm. See Barnes v. State, 643 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850 (“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 in a noncapital case ... 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, or (2) the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively.” (emphasis added)).
In this case, the judgment and sentence became final twelve years ago, and neither exception to the time limit applies. Defendant’s -motion for postconviction relief was therefore untimely, and was properly denied.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amendment TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure Creating Rule 3.853 (DNA Testing). Amendment to Fla. Rules of App. Procedure 9.140 & 9.141, 807 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2001)…relief in non-capital cases unless the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence. See Pope v. State, 702 So. 2d 221, 223, n. 1 (Fla.1997); McCray v. State, 701 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). DNA testing is a recent, highly accurate, application of scientific principles unknown at the time of Dedge’s trial. It is not well known to or understood by most lawyers and judges, I would wager, even in 1998. I think it unfair…
-
Wilton A. Dedge v. State, 723 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…relief in non-capital cases unless the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence. See Pope v. State, 702 So. 2d 221, 223, n. 1 (Fla.1997); McCray v. State, 701 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). DNA testing is a recent, highly accurate, application of scientific principles unknown at the time of Dedge’s trial. It is not well known to or understood by most lawyers and judges, I would wager, even in 1998. I think it unfair…
Authorities Cited
- Leartis Barnes v. State, 643 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)