IVAN MALDONADO v. STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 25, 2018
• Docket: 17-2661
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

IVAN MALDANADO, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2661

[July 25, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann, Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2011-CF-002677-A.

Ivan Maldanado, Wewahitchka, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hart v. State, ––– So. 3d –––, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D970a, 2018 WL 2049668 (Fla. 4th DCA May 2, 2018) (en banc). As we did in Hart, we certify conflict with Cuevas v. State, 241 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Blount v. State, 238 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Mosier v. State, 235 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Alfaro v. State, 233 So. 3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); and Burrows v. State, 219 So. 3d 910, 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. WARNER, J. concurring with opinion.

WARNER, J. concurring.

Although I adhere to my dissent in Hart v. State, ––– So. 3d –––, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D970a, 2018 WL 2049668 (Fla. 4th DCA May 2, 2018) (en banc), I recognize that Hart is now the law of this district until the certified question is answered by our supreme court. * * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.