Crompton v. State
This text of 842 So. 2d 950 (Crompton 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.
Opinion
Although the trial court was incorrect to dismiss the appellant’s second postconviction motion on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim therein, we affirm the trial court’s order because the appellant’s second motion was not filed within two years of the date that his judgment and sentence became final, and, despite the appellant’s assertion to the contrary, the facts upon which the present motion is based do not meet the test for newly discovered evidence. See Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
842 So. 2d 950, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3774, 2003 WL 1387132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crompton-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.