Bee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bee v. State

132 So. 3d 857, 2013 WL 6635821, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19962

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 2013

DocketNo. 4D13-2719

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 132 So. 3d 857 (Bee 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

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

Pincite

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