WILTON AMOS ROSS, 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.
Wilton Amos Ross appeals denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on DNA evidence. After the court initially dismissed his appeal due to a procedural defect, a mandamus petition to the Florida Supreme Court resulted in reinstatement of the appeal. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of postconviction relief, holding that exculpatory DNA evidence does not exclude Ross from the crime scene and is consistent with guilt.
The court held that DNA evidence showing absence of the appellant's DNA is not exculpatory, does not exclude the appellant from the crime scene, is consistent with the appellant's guilt, and does not warrant postconviction relief or likely produce an acquittal at retrial.
[1] A motion for rehearing given to prison officials for mailing is considered timely if mailed within the prescribed period.
[2] Newly discovered DNA evidence that does not exclude a defendant's presence at the crime scene is insufficient to warrant postconviction relief.
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“this evidence does not exclude the appellant from having been present at the scene of the murder, is consistent with appellant's guilt, does not exonerate him, and would not likely produce an acquittal at retrial”
The court's holding regarding the legal effect of DNA evidence showing absence of the defendant's DNA at the crime scene
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoss was convicted of murder. He filed a motion for postconviction relief arguing that recent DNA test results exonerate him. The tests showed that ha…
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 Exoneration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wilton Amos Ross appeals an order of the circuit court which denied his motion for postconviction relief. This court previously dismissed Ross’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his motion for rehear ing in the lower tribunal appeared to be untimely and therefore did not postpone rendition of the order. Ross v. State, 856 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Ross filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Florida which argued that his motion for rehearing, given to prison officials for mailing eighteen days after entry of the trial court’s order, was timely. This court responded to the mandamus petition and acknowledged that the notice of appeal was timely and that dismissal of Ross’ appeal was error. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(g); King v. State, 504 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Fla. R.App. P. 9.420(a)(2). The Supreme Court issued its order in case number SC03-2406 which directed that this appeal be reinstated, which is hereby ordered.
We therefore turn to the merits of Ross’ appeal. In the trial court, he argued that recent test results exonerate him. Those tests showed that hair and blood samples taken from the victim of the murder for which Ross was convicted were solely those of the victim and no DNA of Ross himself was found. The trial court correctly concluded that this evidence does not exclude the appellant from having been present at the scene of the murder, is consistent with appellant’s guilt, does not exonerate him, and would not likely produce an acquittal at retrial. Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla.1998); Galloway v. State, 802 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Denial of the motion for postconviction relief is therefore affirmed.
APPEAL REINSTATED; AFFIRMED.
WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)
- Baker v. State, 802 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- King v. State, 504 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- King v. State, 504 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Wilton Amos Ross v. State, 856 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)