McCray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCray v. State

701 So. 2d 1266, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13895, 1997 WL 757390

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1997

DocketNo. 97-2682

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 701 So. 2d 1266 (McCray 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

McCray v. State, 701 So. 2d 1266, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13895, 1997 WL 757390 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm. See Barnes v. State, 643 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850 (“A motion to vacate a sentence that exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time. [1267]*1267No other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final in a noncapital case ... unless it alleges that (1) the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant’s attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, or (2) the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively.” (emphasis added)).

In this case, the judgment and sentence became final twelve years ago, and neither exception to the time limit applies. Defendant’s -motion for postconviction relief was therefore untimely, and was properly denied.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm. See Barnes v. State, 643 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850 (“A motion to vacate a sentence that exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time. [1267]*1267No other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final in a noncapital case ... unless it alleges that (1) the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant’s attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, or (2) the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively.” (emphasis added)).

In this case, the judgment and sentence became final twelve years ago, and neither exception to the time limit applies. Defendant’s -motion for postconviction relief was therefore untimely, and was properly denied.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 So. 2d 1266, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13895, 1997 WL 757390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccray-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack