Lemay v. State
This text of 921 So. 2d 853 (Lemay 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.
Opinion
Jason C. LEMAY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
*854 KELLY, Judge.
Jason C. Lemay challenges the postconviction court's order summarily denying as untimely his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. Although we conclude Lemay's motion was timely filed,[1] we affirm the postconviction court's order because Lemay's motion is facially insufficient. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b)(1). This affirmance is without prejudice to Lemay's right to file a timely, facially sufficient rule 3.853 motion. Any such motion should not be considered successive.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
NOTES
[1] See In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d), No. SC05-1702 (Fla. Sept. 29, 2005) (extending the deadline for filing a motion for postconviction DNA testing in rule 3.853(d)(1)(A) from October 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
921 So. 2d 853, 2006 WL 508340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemay-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.