NOEL FRANCISCO PEREZ VALLE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Noel Francisco Perez Valle's motion for postconviction relief, holding that his claim was time-barred under Florida's two-year filing requirement for Rule 3.850 motions and that he failed to establish he exercised due diligence in discovering the facts underlying his claim.
The court affirmed the denial of Valle's postconviction relief motion, finding it time-barred under Rule 3.850(b)(1). Valle failed to establish that the facts on which his claim was predicated were unknown to him or his attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence within the two-year period.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered facts must be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence become final, unless the facts were unkn…
[2] To be entitled to postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence relating to a guilty plea, a defendant must establish that the evidence was unknown to the cour…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant's attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, and the claim is made within 2 years of the time the new facts were or could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence”
States the narrow exception to the two-year filing deadline for Rule 3.850 motions that Valle failed to satisfy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceValle filed a motion for postconviction relief challenging his guilty plea, apparently based on newly discovered evidence or consequences he claimed w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Imposition Of Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (providing motions under this rule must be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence become final unless “the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant's attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, and the claim is made within 2 years of the time the new facts were or could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence”); Jules v. State, 233 So. 3d 1196, 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding that a motion for postconviction relief was time-barred where defendant “failed to establish that in the exercise of due diligence he could not have ascertained the possible immigration consequences of his plea” within the requisite two-year period); see also Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342, 346 (Fla. 2016) (holding that, to be entitled to postconviction relief based on newly-discovered evidence relating to a guilty plea, a defendant must establish: “First, the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of the plea, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence.
Second, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the newly discovered evidence, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial”); State v. Rodriguez, 990 So. 2d 600, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that “[n]either the trial court nor counsel is required to forewarn a defendant
about every conceivable collateral consequence of a plea to criminal charges”) (quoting Simmons v. State, 611 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Simmons v. State, 611 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 2016)
- State v. Rodriguez, 990 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Jules v. State, 233 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)