Acosta v. Florida Dept. of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Acosta v. Florida Dept. of Corrections

639 So. 2d 990

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 1994

DocketNos. 93-00817, 93-01557 and 93-01130

StatusPublished

This text of 639 So. 2d 990 (Acosta v. Florida Dept. of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acosta v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 639 So. 2d 990 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon consideration, Acosta’s appeal from the order denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, is procedurally barred since the motion was both untimely filed and an abuse of process. Spaziano v. State, 570 So.2d 289 (Fla.1990); Bertolotti v. State, 565 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1990). Acosta’s petition for writ of mandamus and/or certiorari is dismissed because it is procedurally barred based upon this Court’s prior disposition in Case No. 93-430. Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla.1975).

Further, turning to the merits, the issue has been decided against petitioner-appellant in this Court’s Case No. 93-430, and in Case [991]*991No. 93-1044 in the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. See also Dugger v. Rodrick, 584 So.2d 2 (Fla.1991), from which the instant case is indistinguishable.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, J., concur. COPE, J., concurs with all of the Court’s order except for the first sentence and concurs in the denial of relief.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Upon consideration, Acosta’s appeal from the order denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, is procedurally barred since the motion was both untimely filed and an abuse of process. Spaziano v. State, 570 So.2d 289 (Fla.1990); Bertolotti v. State, 565 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1990). Acosta’s petition for writ of mandamus and/or certiorari is dismissed because it is procedurally barred based upon this Court’s prior disposition in Case No. 93-430. Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477 (Fla.1975).

Further, turning to the merits, the issue has been decided against petitioner-appellant in this Court’s Case No. 93-430, and in Case [991]*991No. 93-1044 in the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. See also Dugger v. Rodrick, 584 So.2d 2 (Fla.1991), from which the instant case is indistinguishable.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, J., concur. COPE, J., concurs with all of the Court’s order except for the first sentence and concurs in the denial of relief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

639 So. 2d 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-florida-dept-of-corrections-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack