Manuel Walters v. The State of Florida

Summary

The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the denial of Manuel Walters’s successive motion for postconviction relief, concluding that his newly discovered evidence claim was untimely, successive, and procedurally barred. The court also affirmed an order prohibiting Walters from filing further pro se pleadings related to the case without the signature of a Florida Bar member in good standing.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly denied Walters's successive postconviction motion because the claim was untimely, successive, and procedurally barred; the purportedly newly discovered note was available to counsel before the prior postconviction evidentiary hearing and therefore did not qualify as newly discovered evidence.
2. The trial court properly exercised its discretion to prohibit Walters from filing further pro se pleadings relating to the case unless signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly denied Walters's successive postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on purportedly newly discovered evidence.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting Walters from filing further pro se pleadings relating to the case unless signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.

Disposition

affirmed