Armstrong v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Armstrong v. State

88 So. 3d 360, 2012 WL 1605408, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7338

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 2012

DocketNo. 4D11-377

StatusPublished

This text of 88 So. 3d 360 (Armstrong v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. State, 88 So. 3d 360, 2012 WL 1605408, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7338 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion as untimely. Appellant did not establish an exception to the time limitation. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Appellant suggests that his ability to file a timely motion to withdraw plea was frustrated by the ineffectiveness of counsel that represented him on the plea. However, counsel’s alleged deficiencies did not interfere with appellant’s ability to file a timely motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant filed two sets of timely post-conviction motions which were dismissed for procedural deficiencies without prejudice to refile. Appellant failed to file a proper motion within the two-year time limit. In an abundance of caution, we have considered the merits of appellant’s claims. His motion established no basis for post-conviction relief. His claim that his convictions for failure to register as a sexual offender violate his “ex post facto rights” is without merit. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003); Simmons v. State, 753 So.2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion as untimely. Appellant did not establish an exception to the time limitation. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Appellant suggests that his ability to file a timely motion to withdraw plea was frustrated by the ineffectiveness of counsel that represented him on the plea. However, counsel’s alleged deficiencies did not interfere with appellant’s ability to file a timely motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant filed two sets of timely post-conviction motions which were dismissed for procedural deficiencies without prejudice to refile. Appellant failed to file a proper motion within the two-year time limit. In an abundance of caution, we have considered the merits of appellant’s claims. His motion established no basis for post-conviction relief. His claim that his convictions for failure to register as a sexual offender violate his “ex post facto rights” is without merit. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003); Simmons v. State, 753 So.2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 3d 360, 2012 WL 1605408, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack