Supreme Court of Florida· 12/18/2008

Jimenez v. State

Citations

997 So. 2d 1056
2008 WL 2445461

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that “[t]he presence of Jimenez inside [the victim’s] unit on other occasions is necessarily based on his own personal knowledge of his actions,” which is not “newly discovered evidence”
concluding, further, that Jimenez’s Giglio claim relating to Calderon’s influence was “without merit” because the “supposed false testimony was not presented during the trial, so it cannot form the basis for a Giglio claim”
“[TJrial counsel was clearly not deficient for the failure to discover information that was neither exculpatory nor impeaching.”
“[T]rial counsel was clearly not deficient for the failure to discover information that was neither exculpatory nor impeaching.”
“To be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, the successive rule 3.851 motion was required to have been filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.”
“To be considered timely filed as newly discovered evidence, the successive rule 3.851 motion was required to have been filed within one year of the date upon which the claim became discoverable through due diligence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.