Bee v. State

132 So. 3d 857, 2013 WL 6635821, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19962
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 18, 2013·No. No. 4D13-2719·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s untimely motion for postconviction relief. On appeal, appellant argues that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing on his allegations that counsel was asked to file the motion within two years of discovery of the alleged misadvice about the immigration consequences of the plea. We reject this argument.

The two-year time limit for filing a post-conviction motion runs from the date the conviction and sentence become final, not from when a defendant discovers misad-vice. Mortimer v. State, 96 So.3d 1060, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006). The motion is untimely and no valid exception was alleged.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

Bee v. State, 132 So. 3d 857, 2013 WL 6635821, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19962 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

132 So. 3d 857 (Bee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wallace v. State
264 So. 3d 389 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Jean Hugue Daniel v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016
Corbin v. State
154 So. 3d 448 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)