MELTON JACKSON
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A defendant must explain with reference to specific facts how DNA testing will exonerate him or mitigate his sentence, and a trial court does not err in denying such a motion where the defendant cannot show a reasonable probability that DNA evidence would achieve that result.
[1] A defendant seeking DNA testing bears the burden of explaining with reference to specific facts how the testing would exonerate him or mitigate his sentence, and a trial…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“it is the defendant's burden to explain, with reference to specific facts about the crime and the items requested to be tested, how the DNA testing will exonerate the defendant of the crime or will mitigate the defendant's sentence.”
Court citing Ordonez-Medina v. State regarding the standard for DNA testing motions
Melton Jackson appealed from a circuit court order denying his motion for DNA testing in a criminal case.…
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 Dna Testing cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 2, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1160 Lower Tribunal No. F97-27689 ________________
Melton Jackson, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christine Hernandez, Judge.
Melton Jackson, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOBREE, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Ordonez-Medina v. State, 221 So. 3d 744, 745 (Fla. 3d
2 DCA 2017) (“[I]t is the defendant's burden to explain, with reference to specific facts about the crime and the items requested to be tested, how the DNA testing will exonerate the defendant of the crime or will mitigate the defendant's sentence. [A] trial court does not err in denying a motion for DNA testing where the defendant cannot show that there is a reasonable probability that the absence or presence of DNA at a crime scene would exonerate him or lessen his sentence.” (quoting Lambrix v. State, 217 So. 3d 977, 987 (Fla. 2017) (quotations omitted, second alteration in original))).