BLAS GARCIA-MANRIQUEZ
v.
STATE
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.
The mere incantation of 'manifest injustice' without factual allegations does not excuse procedural bars to postconviction claims.
[1] Rule 3.850 contains no 'manifest injustice' exception to the rule's time limitation or bar against filing successive postconviction motions; manifest injustice operates o…
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 intelligence“The mere incantation of the words 'manifest injustice' does not make it so.”
Court's statement regarding appellant's failure to allege facts justifying invocation of manifest injustice exception
Garcia-Manriquez appealed a circuit court decision regarding a postconviction motion, apparently invoking 'manifest injustice' as a basis to circumven…
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 Postconviction Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Beiro v. State, 289 So. 3d 511, 511–12 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“The mere incantation of the words ‘manifest injustice’ does not make it so. [Petitioner] has failed to allege any facts—nor can he—to justify invoking the extremely limited concept of manifest injustice to excuse a procedural bar and allow us to review the merits of his instant claim.”); Cuffy v. State, 190 So. 3d 86, 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“The term ‘manifest injustice,’ which has been acknowledged as an exception to procedural bars to postconviction claims in only the rarest and most exceptional of situations, now is abused widely by postconviction litigants. Courts are routinely confronted with untimely and successive postconviction challenges, which cavalierly attempt to circumvent the bars simply by asserting ‘manifest injustice.’ However, rule 3.850 contains no ‘manifest injustice’ exception to the rule’s time limitation or bar against filing successive postconviction motions.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Maykel Beiro v. State, 289 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Johnson Cuffy v. State, 190 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)