BENNY MARTINEZ C
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.
Benny Martinez appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding the motion successive and therefore barred from consideration.
The court affirmed the denial of Martinez's Rule 3.850 motion because it was successive, having already been rejected by the court in a prior appeal.
[1] A successive Rule 3.850 motion raising claims previously adjudicated in a prior appeal may be denied without reaching the merits of the claims.
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“it is successive”
The basis for affirmance—the motion was barred because it was a successive Rule 3.850 motion
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBenny Martinez filed a Rule 3.850 motion seeking postconviction relief in connection with a conviction in Martin County Circuit Court. The motion was …
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 Res Judicata cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 0700361CFAXMX.
Benny A. Martinez, Bushnell, pro se. No appearance required for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. WARNER, J., concurs specially with opinion. WARNER, J., concurring specially.
I concur in affirmance of the denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, because it is successive. A majority of this court has already rejected appellant’s claims in Martinez v. State, 216 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), in which I dissented. Id. at 741-42. Were I to reach the merits, I would still reverse for the reasons articulated in my dissent.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.