context: This Court interprets the state habeas appellate court's affirmance without an opinion to be a denial on the merits. Thus, Plasencia's claim is not proeedurally barred because the state court did not "clearly and expressly [state] that its judgment rests on a procedural bar."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 385 So.2d 1356, 1359
citation_a.parenthetical: holding a per curiam affirmance from a Florida District Court of Appeal is not renewable by the Florida Supreme Court
citation_a.sentence: See Johnson, 938 F.2d at 1173. Furthermore, Plasencia exhausted his state court remedies because he presented his claim to the state’s highest court in his motion for rehearing on direct appeal, and in his Rule 3.850 motion, which was affirmed per curiam by the Second District Court of Appeal. See Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1156 (11th Cir.2010) (stating to exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must have presented the issues raised in the federal habeas petition to the state’s highest court,' either on direct appeal or collateral review); see also Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Fla.1980) (holding a per curiam affirmance from a Florida District Court of Appeal is not renewable by the Florida Supreme Court).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 938 F.2d 1173, 1173
citation_b.parenthetical: stating to exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must have presented the issues raised in the federal habeas petition to the state's highest court,' either on direct appeal or collateral review
citation_b.sentence: See Johnson, 938 F.2d at 1173. Furthermore, Plasencia exhausted his state court remedies because he presented his claim to the state’s highest court in his motion for rehearing on direct appeal, and in his Rule 3.850 motion, which was affirmed per curiam by the Second District Court of Appeal. See Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1156 (11th Cir.2010) (stating to exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must have presented the issues raised in the federal habeas petition to the state’s highest court,' either on direct appeal or collateral review); see also Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Fla.1980) (holding a per curiam affirmance from a Florida District Court of Appeal is not renewable by the Florida Supreme Court).