DALLAS HARTLINE, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in summarily denying the motion for post-conviction DNA testing because there was no reasonable probability of acquittal even with reexamined DNA evidence.
Hartline, convicted of sexual battery and lewd acts, sought post-conviction DNA testing. The state's expert testified the initial DNA tests were incon…
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 Reasonable Probability Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
Hartline appeals from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, in which he sought DNA testing. Although the motion was filed prior to the enactment of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and section, 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001),1 the trial court nonetheless considered the motion on the merits. We affirm.
Hartline was tried and convicted of sexual battery (multiple perpetrators),2 lewd and lascivious act on a child,3 and three counts'of sexual battery on a minor under sixteen years.4 On appeal, his conviction and sentence for sexual battery by multiple perpetrators was reversed. See Hartline v. State, 743 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
In his motion, Hartline claims the state’s expert witness testified the DNA tests were inconclusive and requested that the court below have the DNA evidence reanalyzed. The court concluded there was no reasonable probability that Hartline would be acquitted if the DNA evidence was reexamined.
Upon review of the attached portions of the trial transcript, we agree with the court below that there is no reasonable probability of acquittal if the DNA evidence was reexamined. Hartline’s identity was not in question and based on the sexual activity with the child victim which he admitted performing, the victim’s testimony, and acts an eyewitness described, even exculpatory DNA results would not have been given any weight by the jury.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J, and GRIFFIN, J., concur. .See Amendment to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Creating Rule 3.853, 807 So. 2d 633 (Fla.2001). See also Ch. 01-97, Laws of Florida.
. §§ 800.04(3) and 794.023, Fla. Stat, (1995).
. § 800.04(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).
. § 800.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zollman v. State, 820 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ficient allegation that identity was a genuinely disputed issue at trial. In the only published Florida case addressing this issue, the facts showed that the defendant had admitted to performing certain sexual acts on a minor. See Hartline v: State, 806 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Because the defendant had not maintained his innocence but had, in fact, admitted to the crime, identity was not a genuinely disputed issue at-trial. Id. Therefore, the motion was properly dismissed. Cases from other states wit…
-
Hemherd v. State, 870 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23 (Fla.2004); Hartline v. State, 806 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).…
-
Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)….853, 807 So. 2d 633 (Fla.2001); Galloway v. State, 802 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (relevance is not the test under Rule 3.853; rule requires that defendant explain how a DNA test will exonerate him or mitigate his sentence); Hartline v. State, 806 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (no reasonable probability that defendant would be acquitted if the DNA evidence was reexamined); see also King v. State, 808 So. 2d 1237 (Fla.2002) (DNA testing not known when crimes occurred; state could not have known that spe…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amendment TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure Creating Rule 3.853 (DNA Testing). Amendment to Fla. Rules of App. Procedure 9.140 & 9.141, 807 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2001)
- Hartline v. State, 743 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)