MICHAEL LOCASCIO
v.
THE 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.
A successive motion for post-conviction relief raising previously litigated claims, even if styled as newly discovered evidence, does not warrant an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A successive post-conviction relief motion raising issues previously litigated and rejected in prior appeals, even when styled as presenting newly discovered evidence, do…
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 intelligenceMichael LoCascio appealed the denial of a successive motion for post-conviction relief, claiming newly discovered evidence warranted an evidentiary he…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed November 10, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-0705 Lower Tribunal No. F01-34564A ________________
Michael LoCascio,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marlene Fernandez-Karavetsos, Judge. Michael LoCascio, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Michael LoCascio appeals the denial of a successive motion for post-conviction relief. Including direct appeal, this is the third time he has raised some of these issues, and at least the second time he has raised the rest.
Mr. LoCascio claims newly discovered evidence warrants an evidentiary hearing. However, Mr. LoCascio has previously presented these issues, along with the purported relevant evidence, before both the trial court and this Court. Each time, this Court found no merit to the claims. See LoCascio
v. State, No. 3D12-574, 2012 WL 1109484 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 4, 2012); see
also LoCascio v. State, 76 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
Affirmed.