ALBERT B. THOMPSON, 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 postconviction court erred in summarily denying a motion for DNA testing as moot without an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant sought DNA testing of evidence from a 1969 rape conviction. The State asserted the evidence no longer existed, but the court denied the moti…
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.
Albert B. Thompson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
In 1969, Thompson was convicted of rape after a jury trial. In his postconviction motion, Thompson sought DNA testing of several items of evidence collected during the investigation of the rape charge. The postconviction court concluded that the motion was facially sufficient and ordered the State to respond. The State responded that the physical evidence to be tested no longer existed and requested an evidentiary hearing to provide sworn testimony to support its assertion that no physical evidence containing DNA existed. Rather than scheduling an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court summarily denied Thompson’s motion on the ground that because the evidence was no longer available for testing, Thompson’s claim was moot.
The postconviction court erred in denying Thompson’s claim as moot. A decision by the postconviction court that DNA evidence does or does not exist is a factual finding and requires an evidentiary hearing. Warren v. State, 884 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Jakeway v. State, 884 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Borland v. State, 848 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(c)(3). The record does not contain any testimony or other evidence to support the State’s assertion that the DNA evidence no longer exists. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying postconviction relief and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the evidence still exists for testing.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, STRINGER, and VILLANTI, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Overton v. State, 976 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2007)…ts from one sample); Carter v. State, 913 So. 2d 701, 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“Where a defendant claims that DNA evidence exists, but the state denies the claim, a factual dispute results and an evidentiary hearing is required.”); Thompson v. State, 922 So. 2d 383, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“A decision by the postconviction court that DNA evidence does or does not exist is a factual finding and requires an evidentiary hearing”). In the instant case, there was no factual dispute with regard to the existence of t…
Authorities Cited
- Borland v. State, 848 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Garrison v. State, 884 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Warren v. State, 884 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)