No. 23-6807
Floyd William Damren v. Florida
IFP
Tags: constitutional-amendments constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process florida-rule habeas-corpus newly-discovered-evidence post-conviction-relief scientific-evidence
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment HabeasCorpus Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess Punishment HabeasCorpus Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2024-04-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does Florida's rule 3.851(d)(2)(A) violate petitioner's rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Does Florida’s rule 3.851(d)(2)(A), which establishes a one year timeline (from the time that the evidence became discoverable) violate petitioner’s rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when applied to newly discovered scientific evidence? 1
Docket Entries
2024-04-22
Petition DENIED.
2024-04-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/19/2024.
2024-03-20
Brief of respondent Florida in opposition filed.
2024-02-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 25, 2024)
Attorneys
Florida
Floyd Damren
Robert Friedman — Capital Collateral Regional Counsel-North, Petitioner
Robert Friedman — Capital Collateral Regional Counsel-North, Petitioner