Sturdivant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sturdivant v. State

526 So. 2d 1031, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1430, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2634, 1988 WL 62126

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1085

StatusPublished

This text of 526 So. 2d 1031 (Sturdivant 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

Sturdivant v. State, 526 So. 2d 1031, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1430, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2634, 1988 WL 62126 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sturdivant appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion as untimely filed. This rule allows any person whose judgment and sentence became final prior to January 1, 1985, until January 1,1987, to file a motion in accordance with the rule. Appellant’s judgment and sentences became final in November 1976, so he had until January 1, 1987, to file his 3.850 motion. Because appellant did not file this motion until July 20,1987, the trial court properly denied the motion as untimely. Grooms v. State, 522 So.2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); see also Demps v. State, 515 So.2d 196 (Fla.1987) (post-conviction relief procedurally barred unless appellant alleged facts previously unknown and not discoverable, or raises a newly established fundamental constitutional right). Appellant has not alleged that the facts upon which his claim is predicated have just become known or that his claim is based on a newly established fundamental constitutional right. Cf. Paez v. State, 512 So.2d 263 (Fla.3d DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sturdivant appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion as untimely filed. This rule allows any person whose judgment and sentence became final prior to January 1, 1985, until January 1,1987, to file a motion in accordance with the rule. Appellant’s judgment and sentences became final in November 1976, so he had until January 1, 1987, to file his 3.850 motion. Because appellant did not file this motion until July 20,1987, the trial court properly denied the motion as untimely. Grooms v. State, 522 So.2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); see also Demps v. State, 515 So.2d 196 (Fla.1987) (post-conviction relief procedurally barred unless appellant alleged facts previously unknown and not discoverable, or raises a newly established fundamental constitutional right). Appellant has not alleged that the facts upon which his claim is predicated have just become known or that his claim is based on a newly established fundamental constitutional right. Cf. Paez v. State, 512 So.2d 263 (Fla.3d DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 So. 2d 1031, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1430, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2634, 1988 WL 62126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sturdivant-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack