Pernell v. State
937 So. 2d 234, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14646, 2006 WL 2521280
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 1, 2006·No. No. 3D06-1521·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
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
Pernell v. State, 937 So. 2d 234, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14646, 2006 WL 2521280 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).
937 So. 2d 234 (Pernell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Saintelien v. State
937 So. 2d 234 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)