No. 23-6807

Floyd William Damren v. Florida

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2024-02-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
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
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
Carla Suzanne BechardOffice of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Respondent
Carla Suzanne BechardOffice of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Respondent
Floyd Damren
Robert FriedmanCapital Collateral Regional Counsel-North, Petitioner
Robert FriedmanCapital Collateral Regional Counsel-North, Petitioner