Acosta v. Florida Dept. of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Acosta v. Florida Dept. of Corrections

639 So. 2d 990

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 12, 1994·No. Nos. 93-00817, 93-01557 and 93-01130·Published

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] No. 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] No. 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.

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

Pincite

639 So. 2d 990 (Acosta v. Florida Dept. of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related