David Moore, Jr. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

David Moore, Jr. v. State

152 So. 3d 644, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16805, 2014 WL 5149183

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 2014

Docket4D14-2723

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 152 So. 3d 644 (David Moore, Jr. 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

David Moore, Jr. v. State, 152 So. 3d 644, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16805, 2014 WL 5149183 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s successive and untimely motion for postcon-viction relief. Appellant raised the same claim regarding misadvice of counsel regarding his plea in Moore v. State, 114 So.3d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). He claims that because of Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013), decided after Moore, he is entitled to re-raise this same claim. However, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(3) permits a claim to be raised beyond the two-year time limitation only “where the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively, and the claim is made within 2 years of the date of the mandate of the decision announcing the retroactivity.” Neither Alcorn nor any decision since its rendition has held that it is to be applied retroactively, nor does it appear that Alcorn meets the retroactivity *645 test announced in Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980).

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s successive and untimely motion for postcon-viction relief. Appellant raised the same claim regarding misadvice of counsel regarding his plea in Moore v. State, 114 So.3d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). He claims that because of Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013), decided after Moore, he is entitled to re-raise this same claim. However, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(3) permits a claim to be raised beyond the two-year time limitation only “where the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively, and the claim is made within 2 years of the date of the mandate of the decision announcing the retroactivity.” Neither Alcorn nor any decision since its rendition has held that it is to be applied retroactively, nor does it appear that Alcorn meets the retroactivity *645 test announced in Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980).

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 3d 644, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16805, 2014 WL 5149183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-moore-jr-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack