Shuler v. State

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

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.