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. 3D26-0125 Lower Tribunal No. F03-30089 ________________ David Tejera, 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, Alberto Milian, Judge. David Tejera, in proper person. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant David Tejera appeals the trial court’s December 19, 2025 order denying, as successive, his ninth and tenth motions for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.1 The State has responded to Tejera’s appeal by confessing error, conceding that Tejera’s postconviction motions raise different grounds from those Tejera had previously asserted. We decline to accept the State’s confession of error,2 and affirm the challenged order for a reason not articulated by the trial court.3 On April 14, 2016, the trial court entered an order precluding Tejera from further pro se filings relating to his conviction and sentence in the instant matter, lower tribunal case number F03-30089. This order required any further filings in the case to be reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing. On appeal, in appellate case number 3D16-1187, this Court affirmed that order. See Tejera 1 Tejera mailed his ninth and tenth postconviction motions from his correctional facility on October 21, 2025. The clerk of the lower tribunal filed both motions on December 9, 2025. 2 See Sanchez v. State, 765 So. 2d 246, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“Robert Sanchez appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Although the State has confessed error, we decline to accept the confession and affirm the order now under review.”). 3 See Spence v. State, 283 So. 3d 828, 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (applying the tipsy coachman doctrine to affirm an order denying the defendant’s rule 3.850 postconviction motion). 2 v. State, 236 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Therefore, Tejera’s ninth and tenth postconviction motions – both filed pro se – were not cognizable by the trial court. While the trial court should have stricken, rather than denied, the motions, we affirm the trial court’s denials because the effect is the same. Affirmed. 3