Background
David Tejera appealed an order denying, as successive, his ninth and tenth motions for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He mailed the pro se motions from prison on October 21, 2025, and the lower court clerk filed them on December 9, 2025.
The State confessed error, acknowledging that the motions raised grounds different from those Tejera had previously asserted. But in 2016, the circuit court had barred Tejera from making further pro se filings concerning his conviction and sentence in this case unless a Florida Bar attorney in good standing reviewed and signed them. The Third District had affirmed that filing restriction.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District declined to accept the State’s confession of error and affirmed. Because Tejera filed both motions pro se despite the previously affirmed filing restriction, the motions were not cognizable by the trial court.
The court held that the trial court should have struck the motions rather than denied them. It nevertheless affirmed the denials under the “tipsy coachman” principle because, in the court’s view, the practical effect was the same.
Key Takeaways
- A previously imposed and affirmed restriction on pro se filings can render later pro se postconviction motions noncognizable.
- An appellate court need not accept the State’s confession of error.
- An appellate court may affirm on a ground not relied on by the trial court when the result is correct.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that serial postconviction motions may be barred by an existing filing restriction even when they assert grounds not previously raised. For practitioners, it also illustrates that the correct procedural disposition may be to strike an unauthorized filing, although an erroneous denial can be affirmed when it produces the same result.