PER CURIAM.
The appellant contends that the court erred in denying his motion for postconviction relief as untimely filed. He argues that he had previously filed a motion for postconviction relief that was dismissed without prejudice by the trial court. Apparently, the motion on review here was the resubmission of that motion. If correct, the court erred in denying the motion as untimely filed. See Lemus v. State,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
