Litchmore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Litchmore v. State

96 So. 3d 1157, 2012 WL 4039725, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15438

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 14, 2012·No. No. 2D12-800·Published

Opinion

KHOUZAM, Judge.

Anthony Litchmore appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The postcon-viction court ruled that the motion was untimely, and we agree. See Barrios-Cruz v. State, 63 So.3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). As we did in Barrios-Cruz, we hold that Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), does not apply retroactively in post-conviction proceedings, and we certify the following question of great public importance:

SHOULD THE RULING IN PADILLA v. KENTUCKY, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY IN POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDINGS?

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and MORRIS, JJ„ Concur.

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

KHOUZAM, Judge.

Anthony Litchmore appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The postcon-viction court ruled that the motion was untimely, and we agree. See Barrios-Cruz v. State, 63 So.3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). As we did in Barrios-Cruz, we hold that Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), does not apply retroactively in post-conviction proceedings, and we certify the following question of great public importance:

SHOULD THE RULING IN PADILLA v. KENTUCKY, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY IN POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDINGS?

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and MORRIS, JJ„ Concur.

Litchmore v. State, 96 So. 3d 1157, 2012 WL 4039725, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15438 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

96 So. 3d 1157 (Litchmore v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related