Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Tomas Antonio LOPEZ, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-05-09
Citations: 785 So. 2d 667
Docket Number: No. 3D00-2552
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Tomas Antonio LOPEZ, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 785
Pages: 667–667

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Tomas Antonio LOPEZ, Appellee.
No. 3D00-2552.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 9, 2001.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Roberta G. Mandel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Alvarez & Garcia-Montes and Gustavo J. Garcia-Montes, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court's order granting defendant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant did not lack due diligence in bringing his claim and that there was not inordinate prejudice to the state. See State v. Perry, 786 So.2d 554 (Fla.2001), and cases cited therein. Contrary to the state's assertion the transcript of the evi-dentiary hearing demonstrates that the trial court properly addressed the laches issue and properly found that Gregersen v. State, 714 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), affirming, 758 So.2d 106 (Fla.2000) is factually distinguishable.
Affirmed.