Daniel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Daniel v. State

740 So. 2d 1179, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5095, 1999 WL 228528

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1999

DocketNo. 98-05013

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 740 So. 2d 1179 (Daniel 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

Daniel v. State, 740 So. 2d 1179, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5095, 1999 WL 228528 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Larry Daniel appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He raises numerous issues, all of which we affirm, but his claim of newly discovered evidence merits brief discussion.

Daniel seeks to withdraw his plea to first-degree murder based on newly discovered evidence. In examining the record, we find that Daniel’s claim satisfies neither the requirements of Melendez v. State, 718 So.2d 746 (Fla.1998), on the issue of newly discovered evidence, nor the threshold set forth in Scott v. State, 629 So.2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), that the withdrawal of a plea may only be permitted to prevent a manifest injustice. See also Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla.1975).

Affirmed.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

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