Griffith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Griffith v. State

861 So. 2d 1233, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18830, 2003 WL 22927414

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 2003

DocketNo. 2D03-1732

StatusPublished

This text of 861 So. 2d 1233 (Griffith 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

Griffith v. State, 861 So. 2d 1233, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18830, 2003 WL 22927414 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SALCINES, Judge.

Robert F. Griffith appeals the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Griffith alleged a claim of newly discovered evidence, but he failed to allege that he could not have discovered the evidence through the exercise of due diligence or that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice. See Daniel v. State, 740 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Alkanan v. State, 786 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order of denial without prejudice to Griffith to file a legally sufficient motion based on newly discovered evidence within thirty days of the issuance of the mandate in this appeal. See Alkanan, 786 So.2d at 1276.

Affirmed.

FULMER and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.

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

SALCINES, Judge.

Robert F. Griffith appeals the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Griffith alleged a claim of newly discovered evidence, but he failed to allege that he could not have discovered the evidence through the exercise of due diligence or that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice. See Daniel v. State, 740 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Alkanan v. State, 786 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order of denial without prejudice to Griffith to file a legally sufficient motion based on newly discovered evidence within thirty days of the issuance of the mandate in this appeal. See Alkanan, 786 So.2d at 1276.

Affirmed.

FULMER and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 1233, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18830, 2003 WL 22927414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack