Tavarus Lightsey v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-0883
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 11, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

_______________

No. 3D25-0883 Lower Tribunal Nos. F07-342, F07-506, F07-2179 _______________

Tavarus Lightsey, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

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

Tavarus Lightsey, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellant Tavarus Lightsey appeals the trial court’s summary denial of

his amended motion for post-conviction relief filed under Florida Rule of

Criminal Procedure 3.850. To affirm a trial court’s summary denial, the

claims must be either facially insufficient, conclusively refuted by the record,

or procedurally barred. Foster v. State, 810 So. 2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2002).

Finding that all Lightsey’s claims fit squarely in these three categories, we

affirm. See Suggs v. State, 923 So. 2d 419, 429 (Fla. 2005) (“In order to

prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate both

that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency caused

prejudice.”); see also Jones v. State, 845 So. 2d 55, 64 (Fla. 2003)

(“Postconviction relief cannot be based on speculative assertions.”); Smith

v. State, 445 So. 2d 323, 325 (Fla. 1983) (“Issues which either were or could

have been litigated at trial and upon direct appeal are not cognizable through

collateral attack.”).

Affirmed.