Rowley v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Rowley’s motion styled as a motion for newly discovered evidence. Because Rowley pleaded guilty and did not have a trial, Rule 33 did not apply; alternatively, the motion was untimely and his request for postconviction relief was barred under Rule 61. The Court also noted that Rowley’s underlying claims concerning misconduct at the medical examiner’s office had previously been rejected. No separate opinions were issued.