RICHARD MARLOWE, 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 court affirmed the summary denial of postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence, rejecting the defendant's claims after granting a belated appeal due to counsel's failure to file an initial brief.
The summary denial of postconviction relief asserting newly discovered evidence was properly denied.
Marlowe appealed the summary denial of a postconviction motion claiming newly discovered evidence. His initial counsel failed to file a brief and did …
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 Failure To File Brief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These are further proceedings in Marlowe v. State, 797 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). When the appeal was initially brought, defendant-appellant Marlowe was represented by counsel who filed an appearance. However, counsel never filed a brief. As this was an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief, the matter was submitted to the panel without briefs. Fla. RApp. P. 9.141(b)(2). This court then issued an af-firmance. 797 So. 2d at 647.
Several months thereafter, the defendant requested a belated appeal. He alleged that his counsel had failed to file a brief and had not advised the defendant of this, so that the defendant could file a pro se brief. Further, he alleged that he was not informed of the outcome of the appeal until long after the time for rehearing had run. The State did not dispute these assertions. Accordingly we granted a belated appeal under Rule 9.141(c). The defendant submitted a pro se brief. This court appointed the public defender to address two issues, and the State has filed a response.
After carefully considering the able submissions of the parties, we adhere to the views expressed in our earlier opinion, and again conclude that the denial of the motion for postconviction relief (asserting claims of newly discovered evidence) was correctly denied.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holmes v. State, 964 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Dobson v. State, 860 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Aguilar v. State, 807 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).…
Authorities Cited
- Marlowe v. State, 797 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Wright v. State, 797 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)