Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2008

Capodilupo v. State

Capodilupo v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided June 25, 2008 · Salter, Schwartz, Shepherd
985 So. 2d 1168; 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 9447; 2008 WL 2511770 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Capodilupo v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (discussing what constitutes newly discovered evidence, for the purposes of filing a rule 3.850 motion outside of the two-year time window); Major v. State, 814 So.2d 424, 431 (Fla. 2002) (“[N]either the trial court nor counsel has a duty to advise a defendant that the defendant’s plea in a pending case may have sentence enhancing consequences on a sentence imposed for a crime committed'in the future.”); Bolyea v. State, 508 So.2d 457, 459 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987) (“A probationer, whether or not incarcerated as a condition of probation, is ‘in custody’ for purposes of rule 3.850 and may seek postconviction relief pursuant to that rule.”).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.