Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Roseman v. State

Roseman v. State

585 So. 2d 1184, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9575, 1991 WL 182088
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 19, 1991
DocketNo. 91-1759
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 585 So. 2d 1184 (Roseman 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
Roseman v. State, 585 So. 2d 1184, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9575, 1991 WL 182088 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

DAUKSCH, COBB and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Young v. State
585 So. 2d 1184 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
585 So. 2d 1184, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9575, 1991 WL 182088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roseman-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.