Paz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paz v. State

274 So. 3d 452

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2019

DocketNo. 3D19-409

StatusPublished

This text of 274 So. 3d 452 (Paz 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

Paz v. State, 274 So. 3d 452 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(h)(2) (providing: "A second or successive motion is an extraordinary pleading. Accordingly, a court may dismiss a second or successive motion if the court finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits ..."); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (providing that a claim of newly-discovered evidence must be made "within 2 years of the time the new facts were or could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence"); Long v. State, 183 So.3d 342 (Fla. 2016) (establishing two-prong test to be applied in a motion to vacate judgment and sentence based upon newly-discovered evidence relating to a guilty plea, and reaffirming that the burden is on the defendant to establish a legally sufficient claim premised on newly-discovered evidence); Berry v. State, 175 So.3d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (affirming trial court's denial of motion to vacate plea and sentence where defendant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that the claimed newly-discovered evidence was unknown to defendant, his trial counsel and the trial court within the two-year period under rule 3.850, and failed to establish that the evidence could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(h)(2) (providing: "A second or successive motion is an extraordinary pleading. Accordingly, a court may dismiss a second or successive motion if the court finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits ..."); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (providing that a claim of newly-discovered evidence must be made "within 2 years of the time the new facts were or could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence"); Long v. State, 183 So.3d 342 (Fla. 2016) (establishing two-prong test to be applied in a motion to vacate judgment and sentence based upon newly-discovered evidence relating to a guilty plea, and reaffirming that the burden is on the defendant to establish a legally sufficient claim premised on newly-discovered evidence); Berry v. State, 175 So.3d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (affirming trial court's denial of motion to vacate plea and sentence where defendant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that the claimed newly-discovered evidence was unknown to defendant, his trial counsel and the trial court within the two-year period under rule 3.850, and failed to establish that the evidence could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 So. 3d 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paz-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack