Long v. State
Annotate this CaseAppellant, a prisoner under sentence of death, filed a successive motion for postconviction relief, claiming that newly discovered evidence rendered his guilty plea invalid. The postconviction court summarily denied Appellant’s successive postconviction motion as time-barred on the grounds that the newly discovered evidence was information that could have been ascertained with the exercise of due diligence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court’s summary denial was proper, as Appellant failed to timely file this motion and, further, Appellant could not demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the newly discovered evidence, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.
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.