Santos v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Santos v. State

79 So. 3d 112, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 521, 2012 WL 127244

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 18, 2012·No. 4D10-4810·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm with prejudice the summary denial of appellant’s untimely postconviction motion. The alleged “newly discovered evidence,” that jury selection was not transcribed for the direct appeal in 1994, could have been discovered with due diligence within the two-year time limit. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1).

Affirmed.

WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm with prejudice the summary denial of appellant’s untimely postconviction motion. The alleged “newly discovered evidence,” that jury selection was not transcribed for the direct appeal in 1994, could have been discovered with due diligence within the two-year time limit. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1).

Affirmed.

WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Santos v. State, 79 So. 3d 112, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 521, 2012 WL 127244 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

79 So. 3d 112 (Santos v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related