Nava v. State
852 So. 2d 327, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11745, 2003 WL 21800166
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Nava v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 781 So. 2d 1136 →
Opinion
Bernard Nava challenges the trial court’s denial of his rule 3.850 motion which was premised on newly discovered [328]*328evidence. The trial court denied the motion as successive.
Nava’s previous motion did not present the same issue. Nava v. State, 801 So.2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Compare Wright v. State, - So.2d -, 2003 WL 21511313 (Fla. July 3, 2003). We affirm however because Nava’s motion is legally insufficient. Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 916 (Fla.1991).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Nava v. State, 852 So. 2d 327, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11745, 2003 WL 21800166 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).
852 So. 2d 327 (Nava v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jones v. State
591 So. 2d 911 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Wright v. State
857 So. 2d 861 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)