Selvin Vasquez-Gomez v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 28, 2025
Docket3D2025-0430
StatusPublished

This text of Selvin Vasquez-Gomez v. State of Florida (Selvin Vasquez-Gomez 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.

Bluebook
Selvin Vasquez-Gomez v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 28, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0430 Lower Tribunal No. F13-14217 ________________

Selvin Vasquez-Gomez, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge.

Selvin Vazquez-Gomez, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Selvin Vasquez-Gomez appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his untimely, successive postconviction motion as procedurally

barred, contending that he was precluded from raising his claims in prior

motions as they relied upon a 2023 change in the law. However, Vasquez-

Gomez is not entitled to relief from his procedural default as the 2023

amendment to section 794.011(2)(a), Florida Statutes, does not apply

retroactively to crimes committed before October 1, 2023. See Ch. 2023-25,

§ 1, Laws of Fla. (eff. Oct. 1, 2023); Bartels v. State, No. 4D2024-0728, 2025

WL 1318637, at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA May 7, 2025). Prior to this inapplicable

legislative change, it is clear that Vasquez-Gomez’s claims did not warrant

relief. See State v. Hogan, 451 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1984) (holding that sexual

battery on victim less than twelve years old is not capital offense for purposes

of determining whether twelve-person jury is required); Snowden v. Donner,

464 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (indictment not necessary in “capital

crime” where death penalty is not possible); Cooper v. State, 453 So. 2d 67

(Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (information appropriate charging document and six-

person jury proper in sexual battery case where death is not possible

penalty); In re Amendment to Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure-Rule 3.112

Minimum Standards for Attorneys in Capital Cases, 759 So. 2d 610, 614

(Fla. 1999) (minimum standards for attorneys in capital cases in Florida Rule

of Criminal Procedure 3.112 only apply to capital cases in which State is

2 seeking imposition of death penalty, and do not need to be applied in cases

where State has formally renounced any intention to seek that penalty).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cooper v. State
453 So. 2d 67 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
State v. Hogan
451 So. 2d 844 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Snowden v. Donner
464 So. 2d 223 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Selvin Vasquez-Gomez v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selvin-vasquez-gomez-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2025.