Pernell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pernell v. State

937 So. 2d 234, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14646, 2006 WL 2521280

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 1, 2006

DocketNo. 3D06-1521

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 937 So. 2d 234 (Pernell 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

Pernell v. State, 937 So. 2d 234, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14646, 2006 WL 2521280 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for post conviction relief claiming newly discovered evidence. We affirm because the defendant’s claim regarding gain time has been previously litigated, Pernell v. State, 855 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), is untimely, and does not qualify as newly discovered evidence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850; Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250 (Fla.1997).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for post conviction relief claiming newly discovered evidence. We affirm because the defendant’s claim regarding gain time has been previously litigated, Pernell v. State, 855 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), is untimely, and does not qualify as newly discovered evidence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850; Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250 (Fla.1997).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

937 So. 2d 234, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14646, 2006 WL 2521280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pernell-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack