Seneca v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Seneca v. State

32 So. 3d 148, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2085, 2010 WL 624238

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 2010

Docket4D09-5213

StatusPublished

This text of 32 So. 3d 148 (Seneca 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

Seneca v. State, 32 So. 3d 148, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2085, 2010 WL 624238 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary dismissal of appellant’s second, successive postconviction relief motion. The motion was untimely and an abuse of procedure. See Witt v. State, 465 So.2d 510, 512 (Fla.1985). The issue that appellant raised could and should have been raised on direct appeal and not in postconviction proceedings. See Rose v. State, 675 So.2d 567, 569 n. 1 (Fla.1996); McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388, 1390 (Fla.1983). Indeed, appellant provides those portions of the transcript which show that the very issue he raises in this motion was raised before the trial judge in the original proceedings. His claim that a “manifest injustice” would occur if he is not given relief is specious.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary dismissal of appellant’s second, successive postconviction relief motion. The motion was untimely and an abuse of procedure. See Witt v. State, 465 So.2d 510, 512 (Fla.1985). The issue that appellant raised could and should have been raised on direct appeal and not in postconviction proceedings. See Rose v. State, 675 So.2d 567, 569 n. 1 (Fla.1996); McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388, 1390 (Fla.1983). Indeed, appellant provides those portions of the transcript which show that the very issue he raises in this motion was raised before the trial judge in the original proceedings. His claim that a “manifest injustice” would occur if he is not given relief is specious.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 So. 3d 148, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2085, 2010 WL 624238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seneca-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack