Porter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Porter v. State

30 So. 3d 572, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1577, 2010 WL 532814

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 17, 2010

Docket4D09-1694

StatusPublished

This text of 30 So. 3d 572 (Porter 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

Porter v. State, 30 So. 3d 572, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1577, 2010 WL 532814 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the circuit court’s denial of the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We find that the appellant’s first, second, fifth and sixth grounds for relief are untimely. See Bo- *573 lender v. State, 658 So.2d 82, 85 (Fla.1995) (requiring that a rule 3.850 motion filed on the basis of newly discovered evidence be filed “within two years of the time when evidence upon which avoidance of the time limit was based could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence”). We find that the appellant’s other grounds for relief were, or could have been, raised on direct appeal and, therefore, are unauthorized. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c) (“This rule does not authorize relief based on grounds that could have or should have been raised at trial and, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence.”).

Affirmed.

FARMER, STEVENSON and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the circuit court’s denial of the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We find that the appellant’s first, second, fifth and sixth grounds for relief are untimely. See Bo- *573 lender v. State, 658 So.2d 82, 85 (Fla.1995) (requiring that a rule 3.850 motion filed on the basis of newly discovered evidence be filed “within two years of the time when evidence upon which avoidance of the time limit was based could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence”). We find that the appellant’s other grounds for relief were, or could have been, raised on direct appeal and, therefore, are unauthorized. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c) (“This rule does not authorize relief based on grounds that could have or should have been raised at trial and, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence.”).

Affirmed.

FARMER, STEVENSON and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 So. 3d 572, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1577, 2010 WL 532814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack