PER CURIAM.
Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief challenging his conviction for rape, which became final in 1970. The trial court denied the motion as untimely and successive. We affirm.
Defendant's motion did not present any valid exceptions to the time limitations under the rule. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Further, Defendant's motion was successive as the claims could have been raised in one of his previous motions. See Baker v...
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.
