DAVID TEJERA
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pro se postconviction motions filed in violation of a prior court order requiring attorney review and signature are not cognizable by the trial court.
[1] A pro se postconviction motion filed in violation of a prior court order requiring attorney review and signature is not cognizable by the trial court, and denial of such…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTejera appealed the trial court's December 19, 2025 order denying his ninth and tenth postconviction motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed November 4, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-0125 Lower Tribunal No. F03-30089
David Tejera, 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, Alberto Milian, Judge.
David Tejera, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant David Tejera appeals the trial court's December 19, 2025 order denying, as successive, his ninth and tenth motions for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.1 The State has responded to Tejera's appeal by confessing error, conceding that Tejera's postconviction motions raise different grounds from those Tejera had previously asserted. We decline to accept the State's confession of error,2 and affirm the challenged order for a reason not articulated by the trial court.3
On April 14, 2016, the trial court entered an order precluding Tejera from further pro se filings relating to his conviction and sentence in the instant matter, lower tribunal case number F03-30089. This order required any further filings in the case to be reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing. On appeal, in appellate case number 3D16-1187, this Court affirmed that order. See Tejera
v. State, 236 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Therefore, Tejera's ninth and tenth postconviction motions – both filed pro se – were not cognizable by the trial court. While the trial court should have stricken, rather than denied, the motions, we affirm the trial court's denials because the effect is the same. Affirmed.