D'ANDRE ROLACK
v.
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 appellant failed to make facially or legally sufficient allegations under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853.
[1] To be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, a successive motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 must be filed within one year of the date u…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Defendant has failed to make facially or legally sufficient allegations”
From Lambrix v. State, 217 So. 3d 977, 986 (Fla. 2017), setting forth requirements under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853
D'Andre Rolack appealed from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County. The appeal involved claims under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853.…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.853 cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 13, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-0646
Lower Tribunal No. F99-39153
D'Andre Rolack,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura María González-Marqués, Judge.
D'Andre Rolack, in proper person. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Lambrix v. State, 217 So. 3d 977, 986 (Fla. 2017) (setting forth requirements under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and concluding that “Defendant has failed to make facially or legally sufficient allegations"); see also Jimenez v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056, 1064 (Fla. 2008) ("To be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, the successive rule 3.851 motion was required to have been filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jimenez v. State, 997 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2008)
- Cary Michael Lambrix v. State, 217 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 2017)