Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 4, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D26-1337 Lower Tribunal Nos. F11-30100, F22-9486, F22-10090, F22-10101 ________________ Sydney Smith, 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, Tanya Brinkley, Judge. Sydney Smith, in proper person. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Jason Michael Ross, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before MILLER, GOODEN and REBULL, JJ. PER CURIAM. After being granted a belated appeal, Appellant Syndey Smith appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. To affirm a trial court’s summary denial, the claims must be either facially insufficient, conclusively refuted by the record, or procedurally barred. Foster v. State, 810 So. 2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2002). Finding all of Syndey’s claims fit squarely in these categories, we affirm. See Suggs v. State, 923 So. 2d 419, 429 (Fla. 2005) (“In order to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency caused prejudice.”); see also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); Graham v. State, 207 So. 3d 135, 141 (Fla. 2016) (“[W]here the defendant is convicted multiple times under the same statute for acts that occurred during the course of a single criminal episode, a ‘distinct acts’ test is used. . . .”); Jacobs v. State, 272 So. 3d 838, 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“Pursuant to the distinct acts test, a single criminal impulse may be punished only once no matter how long the action may continue, while separate, successive impulses may be punished separately even though all unite in swelling a common stream of action. In determining whether acts are distinct, courts consider factors such as whether there was (1) a temporal break between the acts, (2) intervening acts, (3) a change in 2 location between the acts; and/or (4) a new criminal intent formed.”) (citation omitted). Affirmed. 3