Walter v. State

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 16, 2019.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-146
Lower Tribunal No. 98-34894A
________________
David S. Walter,
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, Diane V. Ward, Judge.
David S. Walter, in proper person.
Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Natalia Costea, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ., and LUCK, Associate Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant David S. Walter appeals a December 8, 2017 trial court order
summarily denying, as successive, Walter’s November 20, 2017 post-conviction
motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Walter’s
motion alleged he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence,
to wit, an affidavit of an alleged witness to the crime.
In February of 2017, however, Walter filed a virtually identical motion,
along with the same affidavit that accompanied Walter’s November 2017 motion.
On June 28, 2017, the trial court denied Walter’s February 2017 motion. In its
order, the trial court expressed that it was unnecessary to address the merits of the
claim because the affidavit was legally insufficient in that it lacked a jurat. Toward
the end of this order, though, the trial court elaborated by further finding the
affidavit lacked credibility and appeared to be an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on
the court. Walter did not appeal this June 28, 2017 order.
In this appeal, Walter contends that the trial court erred in finding his
November 2017 motion successive on the ground that the trial court did not reach
the merits of his February 2017 motion. We disagree. While the trial court’s June
28, 2017 order initially indicated that it was unnecessary to address the merits, the
order plainly and unequivocally determined that the affidavit upon which Walter’s
February 2017 motion was based lacked credibility. This constituted a reaching of
the merits; and thus, the trial court correctly characterized Walter’s November
2017 motion as successive. McKenley v. State, 937 So. 2d 223, 225 (Fla. 3d DCA
2
2006) (“A trial court may dismiss a successive motion for post-conviction relief
that had been previously adjudicated on the merits.”).
Affirmed.
3