DWAYNE LEBARR
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.
Claims raised and rejected in prior post-conviction proceedings are procedurally barred from being relitigated in successive post-conviction motions.
[1] A trial court may summarily deny a successive post-conviction motion that attempts to relitigate claims on the merits that were already decided in a prior post-conviction…
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 intelligenceLebarr filed his seventh Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion alleging that records obtained a decade after his convictions became final from the United …
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 Newly Discovered Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 30, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-2558 Lower Tribunal No. F12-15917
Dwayne Lebarr, 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, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge.
Dwayne Lebarr, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Ryan Patrick Schelwat, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Dwayne Lebarr filed his seventh Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 post-conviction relief motion alleging that records he obtained, a decade after his convictions became final, from the United States Marshals Service via a Freedom of Information Act request constituted "newly discovered evidence” entitling him to a new trial.
Lebarr raised an identical claim in his sixth post-conviction motion with respect to the claims directed at the records obtained from the U.S. Marshals Service. "Claims raised and rejected in prior postconviction proceedings are procedurally barred from being relitigated in a successive motion.” Owen v. State, 364 So. 3d 1017, 1023 (Fla. 2023) (quotation modified) (quoting Hendrix v. State, 136 So. 3d 1122, 1125 (Fla. 2014)).
Here, Lebarr's claims raised in each post-conviction motion on the record were attempts to relitigate an issue already decided on the merits: whether correspondence with and between investigating agencies would entitle him to a new trial. As such, the trial court was empowered to summarily deny his motion. See Walters v. State, 410 So. 3d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
Affirmed.
2