Harold Lee Harvey, Jr. v. State of Florida

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Harvey’s second successive postconviction motion. It held that his allegation that counsel failed to consult him before conceding guilt did not state a claim under the rule protecting a defendant’s expressly asserted objective of maintaining innocence, because Harvey did not allege that counsel conceded guilt over his express objection. The court therefore did not reach the alternative grounds that the motion was untimely or that the asserted right was not retroactive.