GEORGE ST. FLORANT v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 18, 2023
Docket21-2438
StatusPublished

This text of GEORGE ST. FLORANT v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (GEORGE ST. FLORANT v. THE 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.

Bluebook
GEORGE ST. FLORANT v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 18, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2438 Lower Tribunal No. F98-17219C ________________

George St. Florant, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue Venzer, Judge.

Law Offices of Michelle Walsh, P.A., and Michelle R. Walsh, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Denson v. State, 775 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2000) (applying

res judicata to deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus where defendant

raised the same claim in a prior postconviction motion decided against him

on the merits and defendant had exhausted all appropriate appellate review);

see also State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003) (recognizing a

“manifest injustice” exception to a claim otherwise barred by application of

res judicata or collateral estoppel but holding that application of such a bar

to defendant’s successive motion did not result in a manifest injustice); State

v. Weaver, 957 So. 2d 586, 589 (Fla. 2007) (reaffirming that for an erroneous

jury instruction to rise to the level of fundamental error, it must “reach down

into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not

have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error” and holding

that trial court’s error in instructing jury on an alternative element not

contained in the charging document did not rise to the level of fundamental

error where the State did not present evidence or rely on that alternative

element at trial (quoting State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 644–45 (Fla. 1991))).

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

Related

Denson v. State
775 So. 2d 288 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
State v. Weaver
957 So. 2d 586 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)
State v. McBride
848 So. 2d 287 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
State v. Delva
575 So. 2d 643 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
GEORGE ST. FLORANT v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-st-florant-v-the-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2023.