Crompton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crompton v. State

842 So. 2d 950, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3774, 2003 WL 1387132

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 21, 2003·No. No. 1D02-5025·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

ALLEN, C.J., WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ. concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

ALLEN, C.J., WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ. concur.

Crompton v. State, 842 So. 2d 950, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3774, 2003 WL 1387132 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

842 So. 2d 950 (Crompton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related