Cruz v. State of Florida
This text of Cruz v. State of Florida (Cruz v. State of Florida) 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.
Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
JOEL ADRIAN CRUZ,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2025-1895
January 7, 2026
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph Anthony Bulone, Judge.
Joel Adrian Cruz, pro se.
LaROSE, Judge. Joel Adrian Cruz appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion for postconviction DNA testing. The postconviction court found that the motion was facially insufficient. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(b)(1), (3). We agree and affirm. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Mr. Cruz might have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.853 motion. See Bing v. State, 268 So. 3d 192, 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Affirmed. LUCAS, C.J., and MORRIS, J., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cruz v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2026.