Shuler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shuler v. State

160 So. 3d 459, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14260, 2014 WL 4494314

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 12, 2014

Docket2D14-771

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 So. 3d 459 (Shuler 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

Shuler v. State, 160 So. 3d 459, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14260, 2014 WL 4494314 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the postconviction court’s order denying Curtis Shuler’s motion for postconviction relief as untimely. See Fla. R. Grim. P. 3.850(b); McDonald v. State, 133 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“We caution McDonald and others that the holding in Deras v. State, 54 So.3d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), is limited to its facts and does not, in our view, create a manifest injustice exception to the rule 3.850 time bar.”). As this court cannot consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, see Connor v. State, 979 So.2d 852, 866 (Fla.2007), our affirmance is without prejudice to Shuler to file a motion under rule 3.800(a). See Toye v. State, 133 So.3d 540, 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Affirmed without prejudice.

WALLACE, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the postconviction court’s order denying Curtis Shuler’s motion for postconviction relief as untimely. See Fla. R. Grim. P. 3.850(b); McDonald v. State, 133 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“We caution McDonald and others that the holding in Deras v. State, 54 So.3d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), is limited to its facts and does not, in our view, create a manifest injustice exception to the rule 3.850 time bar.”). As this court cannot consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, see Connor v. State, 979 So.2d 852, 866 (Fla.2007), our affirmance is without prejudice to Shuler to file a motion under rule 3.800(a). See Toye v. State, 133 So.3d 540, 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Affirmed without prejudice.

WALLACE, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 So. 3d 459, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14260, 2014 WL 4494314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shuler-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack