From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scott v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 19, 1997
702 So. 2d 309 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Opinion

Case No. 97-3050

Opinion filed December 19, 1997

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Jay Paul Cohen, Judge.

Reginald D. Scott, Cross City, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.


We affirm the trial court's order denying the defendant's motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, because the motion was filed more than two years after the defendant's judgment and sentence became final. See Rosado v. State, 654 So.2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The defendant asserts that the two-year limitation period does not apply to prohibit review of his motion because the grounds for his claim for relief are based upon newly discovered evidence. However, the defendant's motion seeks relief on the grounds of involuntary plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and insufficient evidence to support his convictions. All of these grounds could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence within the two-year time period. See Scott v. Dugger, 604 So.2d 465 (Fla. 1992). Accordingly, the defendant's motion was untimely, and therefore, properly denied.

AFFIRM.

HARRIS, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scott v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 19, 1997
702 So. 2d 309 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Case details for

Scott v. State

Case Details

Full title:REGINALD D. SCOTT, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Dec 19, 1997

Citations

702 So. 2d 309 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Jones v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

850 motion "untimely" where the new evidence "could have been discovered with due diligence within the…