Opinion
No. SC14–1516.
01-23-2015
Daniel Jon PETERKA, Appellant(s) v. STATE Of Florida, Appellee(s).
Opinion
Daniel Jon Peterka, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit court's order summarily denying a successive motion for postconviction relief, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. Because the order concerns postconviction relief from a sentence of death, this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal under article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
We have previously affirmed Peterka's conviction and sentence of death, see Peterka v. State, 640 So.2d 59 (Fla.1994), and also rejected his appeal for the denial of postconviction relief, see Peterka v. State, 890 So.2d 219 (Fla.2004). Since that time, Peterka has filed numerous unsuccessful, successive postconviction motions and habeas petitions. See, e.g., Peterka v. State, SC08–1413, 15 So.3d 581 (Fla. May 22, 2009) (table); Peterka v. McNeil, SC10–801, 56 So.3d 767 (Fla. Nov. 15, 2010) (table); Peterka v. State, SC11–1660, 94 So.3d 499 (Fla. Apr. 26, 2012) (table); Peterka v. State, SC13–846, 122 So.3d 868 (Fla.2013), reh'g stricken (Oct. 3, 2013) (table).
On appeal from the circuit court's order denying his successive motion, Peterka asserts that the circuit court erred in summarily denying his successive postconviction motion that relies on Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S.Ct. 1911 (2013), for a derivative on the claim that a defendant can raise a postconviction collateral claim challenging the effectiveness of postconviction counsel who allegedly did not fully litigate all ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. This Court has already considered and rejected this claim, holding that Trevino “addressed circumstances in which a defendant can raise a claim in a federal habeas petition that he did not raise in state proceedings” and did not provide an independent basis for relief in state court proceedings. Banks v. State, 150 So.3d 797 (Fla.)cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 511 (2014). See also Kormondy v. State, No. SC14–2428, 2015 WL 48045, at *11 (Fla. Jan. 5, 2015) ; Zakrzewski v. State, 147 So.3d 531 (Fla.2014). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's order relief.
No motion for rehearing shall be allowed.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.