ARTIS SCARBOROUGH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Artis Scarborough was convicted of armed robbery after jury trial and appealed the summary denial of his motion for DNA testing of a jacket allegedly recovered by police. The court affirmed the denial but without prejudice, finding that while Scarborough established a disputed identification issue, he failed to show how DNA testing of the jacket would be relevant to exonerating him.
The court affirmed the summary denial of the DNA testing motion. While Scarborough made a sufficient showing that trial identification was disputed, he failed to make a facially sufficient showing that DNA testing of the jacket would be relevant to exonerating him or addressing the identification issue.
[1] A defendant seeking DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 must make a sufficient showing that the trial identification is in dispute.
[2] To obtain DNA testing of evidence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853, a defendant must demonstrate the relevance of the testing to their exoneration.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Scarborough made a sufficient showing that his trial identification was in dispute within the meaning of rule 3.853(b)(4).”
Establishes that the appellant satisfied the first prong of the DNA testing standard by demonstrating disputed identification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScarborough was convicted by jury of armed robbery of a supermarket. He sought DNA testing of a jacket that he claimed police recovered at or near the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.853 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Artis Scarborough was convicted after jury trial of armed robbery of a supermarket. Scarborough appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 in which he sought DNA testing of a jacket that Scarborough alleges was recovered by the police at or near the supermarket. A review of the motion reveals that Scarborough made a sufficient showing that his trial identification was in dispute within the meaning of rule 3.853(b)(4). See Saffold v. State, 850 So. 2d 574, 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Zollman v. State, 820 So. 2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Scarborough did not make a facially sufficient showing under rule 3.853(b)(4) as to the relevance of DNA testing of the recovered jacket in exonerating him. See Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23, 28 (Fla.2004).
Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is affirmed without prejudice to any right Scarborough may have to file a facially sufficient motion under rule 3.853 that is timely under rule 3.853(d)(1)(A). In any such filing Scarborough shall state, if known to him, how and where the jacket sought to be tested was recovered by the police, whether that jacket was introduced into evidence, and whether the witness who identified Scarborough, or any other witness, also positively identified that jacket as the one worn by a perpetrator of the robbery. Scarborough must show that DNA testing of the recovered jacket is relevant to the issue of his identification as the perpetrator of the crime.
Affirmed without prejudice to any right Scarborough may have to file a timely, facially sufficient motion under rule 3.853.
FULMER, C.J., and SALGINES and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harvey v. State, 925 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…affirm the postconviction court’s denial of the motion because it is facially insufficient. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Harvey might have to file a timely, [*1112] facially sufficient rule 3.853 motion. See Scarborough v. State, 906 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Affirmed. KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.…
-
Bain v. State, 963 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…le 3.853 motion should be dismissed or denied without prejudice to the refiling of a facially sufficient motion. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 925 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Lemay v. State, 921 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Scarborough v. State, 906 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). However, Bain requests the same [*915] relief for the same reasons in both motions. In light of our holding on Bain’s pro se motion for DNA testing, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial of Bain’s motion for DNA evidence ex…
-
Morris v. State, 940 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…the motion because it is facially insufficient. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Morris might have to file a timely facially sufficient rule 3.853 motion. See Harvey v. State, 925 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Scarborough v. State, 906 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Affirmed. STRINGER and LaROSE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2004)
- Zollman v. State, 820 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Saffold v. State, 850 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)