ROBERT J. BLOCK, 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.
Robert Block appeals the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion and attempts to appeal an order confirming DNA test results. The court affirms the denial of the 3.850 motion and dismisses the appeal of the DNA confirmation order, holding that such confirmatory orders are not appealable under Florida law.
The trial court properly denied Block's Rule 3.850 motion, and an order confirming DNA test results is not appealable under Florida law. Rule 3.853(f) authorizes appeals only from orders on DNA testing motions themselves, not from subsequent orders confirming test results.
[1] An order confirming the results of court-ordered DNA testing is not appealable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853.
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d)(2) authorizes a motion for post-conviction relief based on the results of court-ordered DNA testing, treating such a motion as…
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“Rule 3.853 authorizes appeals from orders on motions which request DNA testing, providing in rule 3.853(f): Appeal. An appeal may be taken by any adversely affected party within 30 days from the date the order on the motion is rendered.”
Establishes that Rule 3.853(f) limits appealable orders to those ruling on DNA testing motions themselves
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlock was convicted of aggravated battery and other crimes arising from a burglary in which he allegedly stabbed the victim with a knife. After his co…
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
KLEIN, J.
The trial court summarily denied appellant’s rule 3.850 motion, which we affirm without further discussion. He is also attempting to appeal an order confirming the result of a DNA test he requested, which we conclude is not appealable.
Appellant was convicted of several crimes arising out of a burglary, including aggravated battery, which was based on his stabbing the victim with a knife. After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, appellant filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 seeking DNA testing, based on his contention that the victim was never stabbed with the knife and that a DNA test on the substance on the knife would demonstrate that there was no blood of the victim on the knife. The trial court denied the motion for DNA testing, but we reversed that order and the DNA testing was then carried out. The result of the DNA test revealed that the victim’s blood was on the knife, and the trial court then issued an order which read:
This Court accepts such undisputed findings, and, based upon the above, Court finds that the mandate of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has been complied with.
The order also notified appellant that he had thirty days in which to appeal the order. Rule 3.853 authorizes appeals from orders on motions which request DNA testing, providing in rule 3.853(f):
Appeal. An appeal may be taken by any adversely affected party within 30 days from the date the order on the motion is rendered. All orders denying relief must include a statement that the mov-ant has the right to appeal within 30 days after the order denying relief is rendered.
The order which appellant is attempting to appeal is not an order described by rule 3.853(f), but rather an order confirming the results of the testing he requested.
Rule 3.853(d)(2) authorizes the filing of a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court based on the result of court-ordered DNA testing, and provides that such a motion shall be treated as a claim of newly discovered evidence. There is no provision in rule 3.853, however, or in any other rule, which would authorize an appeal from this order. We accordingly dismiss the appeal from the order entered after the DNA testing and affirm the denial of appellant’s rule 3.850 motion.
STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. State, 995 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for further review of the claims on the merits. As the state recognizes in its response to this court, the claims are cognizable. See e.g. Bussey v. State, 929 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). On remand, the trial court should either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Baker’s claims or conduct an evi-dentiary hearing. The trial court is requested…