Tavarus Lightsey v. State of Florida

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.