White v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 8/8/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DANIEL LEE WHITE,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 6:15-cv-1560-Orl-37DCI

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Respondents.
_____________________________________
ORDER
This

matter

is

before

the

Court

on

Petitioner’s

Motion

for

Reconsideration/Rehearing. (Doc. 25.) Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court’s
earlier order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 23.) As set forth more
fully below, the motion is denied.
A motion for reconsideration “must demonstrate why the court should reconsider
its prior decision and ‘set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the
court to reverse its prior decision.’” Florida Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (quoting Cover v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 148 F.R.D. 294, 295 (M.D. Fla. 1993)). As such, a motion for reconsideration “should
raise new issues, not merely readdress issues previously litigated.” Id. For this reason,
courts have recognized three grounds justifying reconsideration: “(1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct
-1-

clear error or manifest injustice.” Id.
Petitioner’s motion rehashes his failed prescription drug defense. Petitioner
contended at trial – and argues throughout the motion – that the oxycodone pills
recovered from his vehicle in connection with a sting operation were actually his pills;
that he possessed a valid prescription for them; and that he therefore did not commit any
crime. The State’s case-in-chief, however, included substantial evidence from which the
jury could find to the contrary. The State’s evidence included the testimony of the
confidential informant and the police officers who orchestrated the sting, operated the
audio and video equipment that memorialized certain of the events and/or visually
surveilled the events. The State’s evidence established that Petitioner agreed to provide
the informant with the money to purchase the drugs in exchange for the informant’s
agreement to sell some of the drugs to him; that the two met at a local pharmacy, entered
together, exited together, and sat in Petitioner’s car for a few minutes; that Petitioner
drove away; and that police then stopped the car, searched the car, and retrieved the
drugs. Petitioner’s motion does not provide any basis to believe the outcome at trial was
incorrect; that the outcome was infected by constitutional error; or that the denial of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus reflected clear error or manifest injustice.
Accordingly,

it

is

hereby

ORDERED

Reconsideration/Rehearing (Doc. 25) is DENIED.

-2-

that

Petitioner’s

Motion

for

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 8th 2017.

Copies to:
OrlP-5 8/8
Daniel Lee White

-3-