Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

132 So. 3d 857

Bee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 18, 2013

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2013-12-18

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 2019

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The two-year time limit for filing a postconviction motion [based on the alleged misadvice from counsel regarding the immigration consequences of a plea] runs from the date the conviction and sentence become final, not from when a defendant discovers misadvice.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wallace v. State

Relies on 944 So. 2d 208 - State v. Green · 96 So. 3d 1060 - Mortimer v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2013-12-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s untimely motion for postconviction relief. On appeal, appellant argues that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing on his allegations that counsel was asked to file the motion within two years of discovery of the alleged misadvice about the immigration consequences of the plea. We reject this argument.

¶2The two-year time limit for filing a post-conviction motion runs from the date the conviction and sentence become final, not from when a defendant discovers misad-vice. Mortimer v. State, 96 So.3d 1060, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006). The motion is untimely and no valid exception was alleged.

¶3Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
/132/so3d/857 · .json · Public domain