LARRY DANIEL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1999-04-21
No. 98-05013
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
740 So. 2d 1179 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*1180] PER CURIAM.

Larry Daniel appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He raises numerous issues, all of which we affirm, but his claim of newly discovered evidence merits brief discussion.

Daniel seeks to withdraw his plea to first-degree murder based on newly discovered evidence. In examining the record, we find that Daniel’s claim satisfies neither the requirements of Melendez v. State, 718 So. 2d 746 (Fla.1998), on the issue of newly discovered evidence, nor the threshold set forth in Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), that the withdrawal of a plea may only be permitted to prevent a manifest injustice. See also Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975).

Affirmed.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and GREEN, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Miller v. State, 814 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
    …o cases in which a defendant seeks to withdraw a plea after sentencing. In such cases, a defendant must show that withdrawal of the plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. See Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975); Daniel v. State, 740 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So. 2d 1251 (Fla.2000); Kalapp v. State, 729 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Veach v. State, 705 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We adopt the manifest injustice standard for this case and conclude that Miller di…
  • Griffith v. State, 861 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
    …eged a claim of newly discovered evidence, but he failed to allege that he could not have discovered the evidence through the exercise of due diligence or that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice. See Daniel v. State, 740 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Alkanan v. State, 786 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order of denial without prejudice to Griffith to file a legally sufficient motion based on newly discovered evidence within thirty days…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw