Morey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morey v. State

272 So. 3d 464

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 2019

DocketNo. 3D18-1968

StatusPublished

This text of 272 So. 3d 464 (Morey 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

Morey v. State, 272 So. 3d 464 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 769 So.2d 990 (Fla. 2000) (holding movant is procedurally barred from seeking postconviction relief on a substantive claim that was or should have been raised on direct appeal; movant may not avoid this procedural bar by merely recasting substantive claim as one for ineffective assistance of counsel). See also Reed v. State, 116 So.3d 260, 264 (Fla. 2013) (holding: "To obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must meet two requirements: (1) the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence; and (2) the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial") (citing Jones v. State (Jones II ), 709 So.2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998) ).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 769 So.2d 990 (Fla. 2000) (holding movant is procedurally barred from seeking postconviction relief on a substantive claim that was or should have been raised on direct appeal; movant may not avoid this procedural bar by merely recasting substantive claim as one for ineffective assistance of counsel). See also Reed v. State, 116 So.3d 260, 264 (Fla. 2013) (holding: "To obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must meet two requirements: (1) the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence; and (2) the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial") (citing Jones v. State (Jones II ), 709 So.2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998) ).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 So. 3d 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morey-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack