Willie Weaver v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-0884
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 30, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0884 Lower Tribunal No. F13-5829 ________________

Willie Weaver, 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, Ramiro Areces, Judge.

Willie Weaver, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before MILLER, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellant Willie Weaver appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his

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 all of Weaver’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 White v. State, 964 So. 2d 1278, 1286 (Fla. 2007) (“A

defendant cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on

counsel’s failure to call a witness who is unavailable.”); Teffeteller v. Dugger,

734 So. 2d 1009, 1023 (Fla. 1999) (“Trial counsel cannot be deemed

ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims or claims that had no

reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of the proceeding.”); 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.”); Thompson v. State, 88 So. 3d 312, 320 (Fla. 4th DCA

2012) (“To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this type of claim, the

2 movant must set forth clear and convincing circumstances that create a real,

substantial and legitimate doubt as to competency.”).

Affirmed.