Perie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perie v. State

125 So. 3d 973, 2013 WL 2663437, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9440

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 2013

DocketNo. 2D12-4840

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 So. 3d 973 (Perie 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

Perie v. State, 125 So. 3d 973, 2013 WL 2663437, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9440 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, Judge.

We affirm the postconviction court’s summary denial of John Frederick Perie’s motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 as untimely filed. We agree with the First District that Missouri v. Frye, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012), do not establish a new fundamental constitutional right as contemplated by rule 3.850(b)(2) and thus do not provide an exception to the two-year time limit for filing a timely postconviction motion. See Simmons v. State, 104 So.3d 1185, 1186-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). As the First District explained in Simmons, the two decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States

are but a refinement of decisions already handed down, a clearer articulation of existing law that does not establish new constitutional rights: Both Lafler and Frye are properly viewed as “evolutionary refinements” to well-established rules governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the context of convictions predicated on pleas.

Id. (citing Walton v. State, 77 So.3d 639, 643 (Fla.2011), and State v. Barnum, 921 So.2d 513, 526 (Fla.2005)).

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

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

WALLACE, Judge.

We affirm the postconviction court’s summary denial of John Frederick Perie’s motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 as untimely filed. We agree with the First District that Missouri v. Frye, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012), do not establish a new fundamental constitutional right as contemplated by rule 3.850(b)(2) and thus do not provide an exception to the two-year time limit for filing a timely postconviction motion. See Simmons v. State, 104 So.3d 1185, 1186-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). As the First District explained in Simmons, the two decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States

are but a refinement of decisions already handed down, a clearer articulation of existing law that does not establish new constitutional rights: Both Lafler and Frye are properly viewed as “evolutionary refinements” to well-established rules governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the context of convictions predicated on pleas.

Id. (citing Walton v. State, 77 So.3d 639, 643 (Fla.2011), and State v. Barnum, 921 So.2d 513, 526 (Fla.2005)).

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 3d 973, 2013 WL 2663437, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perie-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack