Roseman v. State
585 So. 2d 1184, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9575, 1991 WL 182088
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 19, 1991·No. No. 91-1759·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Petitioner is in prison for armed robbery, burglary, grand theft and grand theft auto and has filed a motion for leave to apply for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, alleging that he has discovered new evidence regarding his conviction. His claim of newly discovered evidence must be raised in the trial court under a Rule 3.850 motion. See Richardson v. State, 546 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1989). The motion for leave to proceed is denied, without prejudice to file a Rule 3.850 motion in the trial court.
WRIT DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Roseman v. State, 585 So. 2d 1184, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9575, 1991 WL 182088 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).
585 So. 2d 1184 (Roseman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Young v. State
585 So. 2d 1184 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)