From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PAEZ v. STATE

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 28, 1987
512 So. 2d 263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

No. 87-1945.

August 25, 1987. Rehearing Denied September 28, 1987.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Theodore G. Mastos, J.

Gonzalo Paez, in pro. per.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.


Paez appeals from the trial court's order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Where a defendant's judgment and sentence were finalized after 1984, the rule requires that such motions be filed no later than two years from the date the judgment and sentence become final, absent allegations that "(1) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or his attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, or (2) the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively." Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850. Paez's motion was not filed until May 7, 1987, more than two years after the date his judgment and sentence became final, which was May 3, 1985, according to Paez's own motion. Furthermore, Paez's motion did not contain allegations of either of the exceptions listed in rule 3.850. Therefore, the trial court properly denied Paez's motion. Accordingly, the order under review is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

PAEZ v. STATE

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 28, 1987
512 So. 2d 263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

PAEZ v. STATE

Case Details

Full title:GONZALO PAEZ, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Sep 28, 1987

Citations

512 So. 2d 263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Sturdivant v. State

Appellant has not alleged that the facts upon which his claim is predicated have just become known or that…

Poole v. State

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, Paez v. State, 512 So.2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also, Card v.…