Long v. State
Annotate this CaseAppellant pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to death. Appellant later filed a successive motion for postconviction relief, alleging that newly discovered evidence rendered his guilty plea invalid. The postconviction court summarily denied Appellant’s successive postconviction motion as time-barred because the newly discovered evidence could have been ascertained earlier with the exercise of due diligence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant failed to timely file this motion after he first discovered the information at issue, the postconviction court’s summary denial was not in error; and (2) even if Appellant’s successive postconviction motion was timely filed, Appellant failed to establish that he was entitled to relief.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.