PER CURIAM.
Edward F. Smith appeals the denial of his untimely and successive Rule 3.850 motion again attempting to collaterally challenge his 1996 conviction and sentence. The November 2012 motion raises a frivolous claim of newly discovered evidence. He claims that the prosecutor was an "imposter" because he was allegedly not designated or appointed to sign the indictment. It is well-established that this type of claim is frivolous. Roker v. State,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.