Donton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Donton v. State

810 So. 2d 525, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 267, 2002 WL 63488

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-3263

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 810 So. 2d 525 (Donton 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

Donton v. State, 810 So. 2d 525, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 267, 2002 WL 63488 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sammy Donton seeks reversal of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief which was filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm.

In his motion, Donton argued that a 1994 conviction, for which he received a twelve-month sentence, was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel and the denial of due process. The circuit court denied post-conviction relief finding the motion time-barred. While Donton claims that he had two years following the release of the decision in Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), to file a post-conviction motion and that the motion at issue was filed within this two-year window, Donton fails to recognize that two-year period provided in Wood pertained to claims involving newly discovered evidence formerly cognizable in a writ of error coram nobis. Donton [526]*526raises no such claim, and thus, his motion is time-barred.

The order on appeal is AFFIRMED.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sammy Donton seeks reversal of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief which was filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm.

In his motion, Donton argued that a 1994 conviction, for which he received a twelve-month sentence, was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel and the denial of due process. The circuit court denied post-conviction relief finding the motion time-barred. While Donton claims that he had two years following the release of the decision in Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), to file a post-conviction motion and that the motion at issue was filed within this two-year window, Donton fails to recognize that two-year period provided in Wood pertained to claims involving newly discovered evidence formerly cognizable in a writ of error coram nobis. Donton [526]*526raises no such claim, and thus, his motion is time-barred.

The order on appeal is AFFIRMED.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

810 So. 2d 525, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 267, 2002 WL 63488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donton-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack