Court Opinion

ID: 9364145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 16:03:31.658742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:36.033731
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed January 18, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                            No. 3D21-2438
                     Lower Tribunal No. F98-17219C
                          ________________

                          George St. Florant,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue
Venzer, Judge.

      Law Offices of Michelle Walsh, P.A., and Michelle R. Walsh, for
appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Denson v. State, 775 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2000) (applying

res judicata to deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus where defendant

raised the same claim in a prior postconviction motion decided against him

on the merits and defendant had exhausted all appropriate appellate review);

see also State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003) (recognizing a

“manifest injustice” exception to a claim otherwise barred by application of

res judicata or collateral estoppel but holding that application of such a bar

to defendant’s successive motion did not result in a manifest injustice); State

v. Weaver, 957 So. 2d 586, 589 (Fla. 2007) (reaffirming that for an erroneous

jury instruction to rise to the level of fundamental error, it must “reach down

into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not

have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error” and holding

that trial court’s error in instructing jury on an alternative element not

contained in the charging document did not rise to the level of fundamental

error where the State did not present evidence or rely on that alternative

element at trial (quoting State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 644–45 (Fla. 1991))).

                                          2