RICCO RICHARDO NARALES BROWN, 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.
Appellant Brown sought DNA testing of a Halloween mask and bandana allegedly worn by the perpetrator under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. The trial court summarily denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court failed to follow proper procedures for evaluating facially sufficient DNA testing motions.
The trial court's summary denial of the facially sufficient DNA testing motion was improper. When a defendant presents a facially sufficient rule 3.853 motion, the trial court must either attach record portions conclusively refuting the motion or conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual disputes between the defendant's motion and the state's response.
[1] A trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a defendant's facially sufficient motion for postconviction DNA testing or conduct an evidentiar…
[2] If a state's response to a motion for postconviction DNA testing creates a factual dispute, the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve that dispute.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In the instant case, remand is necessary because the trial court failed to attach any portions of the record supporting its conclusions or to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual disputes.”
Establishes the core holding that summary denial without record attachment or evidentiary hearing is improper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Brown was convicted based on circumstantial and contradictory testimony from victims. He sought postconviction DNA testing of a Halloween ma…
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 Motion For Postconviction Dna Testing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We reverse.
Appellant seeks testing of a Halloween mask and bandana allegedly worn by the perpetrator of the crimes. He asserts that the DNA test would exonerate him because there was no other physical evidence and the case was based on “circumstantial contradictory testimony of the victims.” He also alleges that the mask and bandana have already been tested, but “subsequent scientific developments in DNA testing techniques likely will produce a definitive result.”
Appellant’s motion is facially sufficient and, thus, the trial court ordered the state to respond. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b). In response, the state asserted that new DNA technology does not exist and that given the testimony at trial, DNA testing would not produce a different result or exonerate the appellant. The trial court summarily denied the motion for the reasons delineated by the state.
In the instant case, remand is necessary because the trial court failed to attach any portions of the record supporting its conclusions or to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual disputes. See Schofield v. State, 861 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that a trial court must attach record portions conclusively refuting a facially sufficient 3.853 motion or conduct an evidentiary hearing); Borland v. State, 848 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that if state’s response to defendant’s rule 3.853 motion creates a factual dispute, the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve that dispute); Riley v. State, 851 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that neither trial court or appellate court could address factual discrepancies between defendant’s rule 3.853 motion and state’s response without considering the trial transcript or conducting an evidentiary hearing). On remand, if the trial court decides that the record conclusively demonstrates that appellant is not entitled to relief, it must attach those portions of the record. If the record does not refute appellant’s claims, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BROWNING, C.J., KAHN and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woodward v. State, 992 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ellant’s compromised physical and mental condition at the time he was interrogated during the suppression hearing, particularly as regards the specific drugs he was taking, he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim. See Brown v. State, 967 So. 2d 398, 399-400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Further, because this claim, like appellant’s contention that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to pursue an intoxicant-induced insanity defense, involves complex medical issues which may require expert med…
-
Berkley D. Whitfield v. State, 190 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…any documents to support its ruling. Therefore, we must reverse the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to either attach documents that conclusively refute Whitfield’s claim or’hold an eviden-tiary hearing thereon. See Brown v. State, 967 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). REVERSED and REMANDED: LAWSON, C.J., PALMER and " =,■■. COHEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Wright v. State, 175 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…se from the State. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(2) (“If the motion is facially sufficient, the prosecuting authority shall be ordered' to respond to the motion within 30 days or such other time as may be ordered by the court.”); see Brown v. State, 967 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (noting that the trial court ordered the State to respond because the appellant’s motion was facially sufficient). The court may deny the motion outright only if it finds it facially insufficient. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(…
Authorities Cited
- Borland v. State, 848 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Schofield v. State, 861 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Lukely Riley v. State, 851 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)