DINO MARCUS GARCIA v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed January 12, 2022.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D21-2144
    Lower Tribunal No. F91-9932A
    ________________
    Dino Marcus Garcia,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    The State of Florida,
    Appellee.
    An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
    the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alberto Milian, Judge.
    Ana M. Davide, P.A., and Ana M. Davide, for appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.
    Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS and BOKOR, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Affirmed. See Dino Marcus Garcia v. State, 
    145 So. 3d 846
     (Fla. 3d
    DCA 2014) (affirming trial court order denying postconviction relief motion
    raising the same grounds raised in the instant appeal). See also McCrae v.
    State, 
    437 So. 2d 1388
    , 1390 (Fla. 1983) (reaffirming that a motion under
    Rule 3.850 may “be summarily denied when it is based on grounds that have
    been raised in prior post-conviction motions under the rule and have been
    decided adversely to the movant on their merits. A ‘second or successive
    motion for similar relief,’ as used in Rule 3.850 has thus been interpreted to
    mean a motion stating substantially the same grounds as a previous motion
    attacking the same conviction or sentence under the Rule.”) (internal
    citations omitted); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(h)(2) (providing in pertinent part: “A
    second or successive motion is an extraordinary pleading. Accordingly, a
    court may dismiss a second or successive motion if the court finds that it fails
    to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was
    on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds
    that the failure of the defendant or the attorney to assert those grounds in a
    prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure or there was no good
    cause for the failure of the defendant or defendant's counsel to have
    asserted those grounds in a prior motion.”)
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-2144

Filed Date: 1/12/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2022