Gregg v. State
127 So. 3d 700, 2013 WL 6081810, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18428
Opinion
The defendant appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion. We affirm. The claims are untimely and successive. See Fla..R.Crim. P. 3.850(b); Parks v. State, 101 So.3d 1265, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“Defendant’s motion did not present any valid exceptions to the time limitations under the rule.... Further, Defendant’s motion was successive as the claims could have been raised in one of his previous motions.”) (citing Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b); Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1243-44 (Fla.2004)).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gregg v. State, 127 So. 3d 700, 2013 WL 6081810, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18428 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).
127 So. 3d 700 (Gregg v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Baker v. State
29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 105 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)
Parks v. State
101 So. 3d 1265 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)