Smith v. State

Edward F. Smith appeals the denial of his untimely and successive Rule 3.850 motion again attempting to collaterally challenge his 1996 conviction and sentence. The November 2012 motion raises a frivolous claim of newly discovered evidence. He claims that the prosecutor was an “imposter” because he was allegedly not designated or appointed to sign the indictment. It is well-established that this type of claim is frivolous. Roker v. State, 25 *156So.3d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). An allegation that a charging document was not properly signed or verified provides no basis for postconviction relief.…