Legal Opinion

Coppola v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 22, 2006No. SC01-2442PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

We have for review Coppola v. State, 795 So.2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions in Murphy v. State, 773 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Jenkins v. State, 771 So.2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We hold that our decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), does not constitute “newly discovered evidence” for purposes of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(2); and because of his negotiated plea, we conclude that Coppola is barred from seeking relief under Heggs.

*508FACTS AND…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. Heggs v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
  4. Carawan v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1987
  5. Hale v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1993

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Coppola v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API