Griffith v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ROBERT F. GRIFFITH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D03-1732 Opinion filed December 12, 2003. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Harry M. Rapkin, Judge. SALCINES, Judge. Robert F. Griffith appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Griffith alleged a claim of newly discovered evidence, but he failed to allege that he could not have discovered the evidence through the exercise of due diligence or that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice. See Daniel v. State, 740 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Alkanan v. State, 786 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm the trial court's order of denial without prejudice to Griffith to file a legally sufficient motion based on newly discovered evidence within thirty days of the issuance of the mandate in this appeal. See Alkanan, 786 So. 2d at 1276. Affirmed. FULMER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. -2-

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.