Parks v. State

Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief challenging his conviction for rape, which became final in 1970. The trial court denied the motion as untimely and successive. We affirm.

Defendant’s motion did not present any valid exceptions to the time limitations under the rule. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Further, Defendant’s motion was successive as the claims could have been raised in one of his previous motions. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1243-44 (Fla.2004).

Finally, Defendant’s claim alleging deficiency in the charging instrument is frivolous. See Logan v. State, 1 So.3d…